No. Wait. Forget all that. Let me start over.
Hello, friends, and welcome to another edition of The Moral Vision of Jesus Christ. This will be the most exhaustive dissection of the morality of Jesus Christ you'll ever read. Bring your open heart and mind.
Today, we have more John the Baptist on our plate. We will dig straight in, exploring Matthew 3:7 and 3:8. We will then briefly consider the possibility that John the Baptist had partaken in something called a "Nazirite Vow," which we will describe in some detail.
Let's get started.
------------------------------
Matthew 3:7 through Matthew 3:8
7 When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
8 Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance.
------------------------------
Last time, we learned who John the Baptist was, and deduced his take on contemporary society, which was that the whole system had gone pear-shaped and was not worth engaging on its terms any longer.
We digress.
Last time, we learned who John the Baptist was, and deduced his take on contemporary society, which was that the whole system had gone pear-shaped and was not worth engaging on its terms any longer.
Today, among the crowds of Jews going out to be baptized by John, appear groups of Sadducees and Pharisees. Remember that The Sadducees were a priestly elite class and The Pharisees were a popular movement that far outnumbered The Sadducees at the time of Jesus.
The phrasing of verse 7 seems to indicate that the multitudes coming out to be baptized were, generally, neither Sadducee nor Pharisee. If this is the case, we are left to wonder who it was that was meeting John there on the banks of the Jordan.
We can be certain that they aren't gentiles, as, shortly, John appeals to the multitudes' common ancestry in Abraham, demonstrating that John's followers are primarily Jewish.
We can be certain that they aren't gentiles, as, shortly, John appeals to the multitudes' common ancestry in Abraham, demonstrating that John's followers are primarily Jewish.
If the crowds didn't consist of Pharisees or Sadducees, then, based on what we know about first-century Palestinian-Jewish demographics, they would most likely have consisted of Essenes, Zealots, or some mixture thereof. This, however, seems unlikely. As you will recall, The Essenes were a monastic group who we believe were not prone to travel, and The Zealots were a sect of radical militants who advocated for war with Rome, having their minds firmly rooted in the material and present aspects of creation. These facts probably preclude these groups from hearing or taking interest in John's cries.
It seems more likely that the crowds were, despite the phrasing in today's reading, made up primarily of people who identified with the Pharisaic tradition. We can see the "Pharisees" mentioned in verse 7 distinctly as Pharisaic elites - priests, clerics or administrators of some kind- and the crowds distinctly as Pharisaic commoners.
To reiterate: the crowds going out to John probably did adhere generally to the Pharisaic oral traditions, but this fact is obscured here by vagueries in the text.
A lot of our subject is thus obscured.
To reiterate: the crowds going out to John probably did adhere generally to the Pharisaic oral traditions, but this fact is obscured here by vagueries in the text.
A lot of our subject is thus obscured.
We digress.
John the Baptist is speaking to Pharisee elites, and Sadducees (who were all elite). What does John have to say to this socially and economically elevated group who had, upon hearing of the "crazy baptist in the desert," trekked out of the safety of civilization to see him? He says, approximately, "you don't belong here, you snakey jerks. There's a storm a'comin', and you ain't supposed to know about it. If you think you belong here, prove it to me by showing what good fruit your repentance from sin has earned you!"
Choice words from The Baptist. John's statement begs several questions.
Some questions that come immediately to mind are:
- Of what would "good fruit" consist?
- What is the exact nature of the impending storm or "coming wrath?"
- By what mechanism has John become aware of the impending storm?
- How would John have defined "repentance?"
- How would John have defined "sin?"
Let's take these one at a time.
- Of what would "good fruit" consist? -
One possibility is that "good fruit" would consist of spiritual gifts (inner peace, outer peace, joy, elation, transcendence, revelation, and the like) related to repentance and self-study, and that John is asking these people to prove their worthiness by displaying the rewards they've already earned by their righteousness in repentance.
Another possibility is that people were making offerings out in the desert by John's instruction, and that John was challenging these elites to make an offering with him and the crowd.
One might also see the "good fruit" as evidence in general of a piously lived life. The text is definitely ambiguous here, so it's impossible to nail down definitive specifics. As with so many things in history, we are left with a plurality of possibility.
One possibility is that "good fruit" would consist of spiritual gifts (inner peace, outer peace, joy, elation, transcendence, revelation, and the like) related to repentance and self-study, and that John is asking these people to prove their worthiness by displaying the rewards they've already earned by their righteousness in repentance.
Another possibility is that people were making offerings out in the desert by John's instruction, and that John was challenging these elites to make an offering with him and the crowd.
One might also see the "good fruit" as evidence in general of a piously lived life. The text is definitely ambiguous here, so it's impossible to nail down definitive specifics. As with so many things in history, we are left with a plurality of possibility.
- What is the exact nature of the impending storm or "coming wrath?" -
As we've discussed, whenever we see eschatological thinking in first-century Palestine, we have to recall that the first-century Jew in Palestine was living through what would have absolutely felt like apocalyptic events. Many Jews awaited a coming King in the line of David who would smash the Roman occupation of Jewish lands and usher in an era of plenty for The Jews, centered around a glorified Temple. It stands to reason that the "coming wrath" would be the reckoning that Romanizers and the religiously lax would face with the triumphant Davidic King.
As we've discussed, whenever we see eschatological thinking in first-century Palestine, we have to recall that the first-century Jew in Palestine was living through what would have absolutely felt like apocalyptic events. Many Jews awaited a coming King in the line of David who would smash the Roman occupation of Jewish lands and usher in an era of plenty for The Jews, centered around a glorified Temple. It stands to reason that the "coming wrath" would be the reckoning that Romanizers and the religiously lax would face with the triumphant Davidic King.
- By what mechanism has John become aware of the impending storm? -
The reader will forever be left grasping at this, I fear. A traditional view is that John the Baptist received his teaching by the same mechanism that the prophets of old had received theirs: by divine or angelic inspiration. There are countless such divine transmissions in The Old Testament to which one could refer to substantiate the possibility of this. The more scholastic view would be that John's end-of-the-times message was an offshoot or amalgamation of one or more of the varying contemporary eschatological sects or movements within the Semitic religions.
We must also face the possibility that Christian concepts from the late first century AD are being back-projected by the author of Matthew, and that John the Baptist said something substantially different than what The Gospel records. We can dispel this possibility some by reading what our old friend Josephus said about John, which we will do before long, but not today.
- How would John have defined "repentance?" -
Broadly, we can say that John would have defined "to repent" the same way the dictionary does today: to "feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's wrongdoing or sin."
John is telling the multitude to turn their heart away from "sin," again, broadly.
The idea of repentance occurs dozens of times in The Old Testament. The Jewish concept of the process of repentance evolved to be, in some cases, a very regimented thing. Gates of Repentance, a thirteenth century Jewish ethical writing, for example, lays out a list of things one must do in order to consider themselves "repentant," including:
- Regretting and acknowledging the sin or transgression.
- Forsaking the sin or transgression.
- Confessing the sin or transgression. And...
- Praying for atonement.
We cannot tell if John meant a specific kind of regimented repentance, or merely the expression of "sincere regret or remorse." We can be sure, though, that his use of the word repentance indicates that he feels the people he is talking to have sinned.
- How would John have defined sin?-
It is most likely that The Baptist defined sin the exact way Jews had long traditionally defined it - as a transgression against any of the nearly innumerable laws of the Tanakh which had been handed down directly from God over the lengthy history of their people. The author of Matthew certainly offers us no clue that John the Baptist has a view of sin that is different from this ancient definition.
From what we can ascertain in The Gospel, John clearly thinks of sin as both rampant and grave during his time. He basically accuses everyone living in the region (or perhaps all of Judaica, or perhaps everyone in the world) of harboring unrepented sin. Looking at the period in context, with the painful process of Hellenization recently complete in all of Palestine, and Rome breathing down everyone's neck, it's easy to see why some contemporary minds, John's included, looked at the situation and said: "we messed up somewhere. This occupation and its tumult are what have come of our sin. We must repent!"
We will find cause to study repentance and sin again and again in different contexts as we move forward.
Next, let's take a look at another possible aspect of John the Baptist's life. Let's take a look at "Nazirite Vows." (We come to this discussion via the tutoring of a learned friend of mine, who mentioned it when we first started talking about John the Baptist the other day.)
"What are Nazirite Vows?" one may ask. Well, you know I like etymology, so let's get that out of the way first. "Nazirite" derives originally from the Hebrew "nāzar" which means "to separate or consecrate oneself." That said, Nazirite Vows were vows of a kind of asceticism that existed within the Jewish tradition since early times. The Nazirite Vows are described in The Book of Numbers, written in the fifth century BC. The description is lengthy, so we won't read it here in its entirety. To follow along, open up your Bible to Numbers and check out 6:1-21.
The Nazirite Vow was a vow that male or female Jews alike could take. Like all vows, it was a promise to adhere to a set of obligations or austerities in order to attain some reward greater than what has been lost to the vow.
Austerities included in the Nazirite Vow:
Numbers 6:3 - "they shall abstain from wine and strong drink."
Numbers 6:4 - "they shall not eat anything of the produce of the grapevine; not even the seeds or the skins." (That's right y'all, no raisins.)
Numbers 6:5 - "no razor shall touch their hair," and they will "[let] the hair of their heads grow freely."
Numbers 6:6 - "they shall not come near a dead person." Explicitly, even if the corpse is family.
There are also a set of rules and some prescribed rituals for ending the period of one's vows, for whatever reason.
So, what's the reward for having taken these vows? In my best estimation, the reward is the same intangible "close-to-Godliness" offered by so many such vows in so many such faith systems around the world. In the words of the Book of Numbers, 6:8: "As long as they are nazirites they are holy to the Lord."
There has been some mix up over the centuries between "Nazarene" and "Nazirite," which is understandable, given that the Nazirites and Jesus were both kinds of ascetics. As we see in The Gospels, though, Jesus did drink wine and he did go near dead bodies. We can be fairly assured in saying that Jesus was not living under a Nazirite Vow during his ministry.
John the Baptist, however, is a different story. The Gospels show John as not imbibing (Luke 7:33), and we have no account of him going near a dead body. We can also stretch our knowledge of humankind a little and imagine that the man living in the desert eating locusts for breakfast hasn't had a haircut or a shave in a couple of weeks. John, therefore, is a good candidate for a possible Nazirite. We can say that the Biblical portrayal of John the Baptist doesn't, at least, rule him out of having been under The Nazirite Vow.
For the curious: everyone's favorite long-haired fellow from The Old Testament, Samson, was a "nazirite from birth" according to The Book of Judges.
The Rastafarian religion is built in part on Nazirite ideals, and the passages from Numbers that we read are cited by adherents as obligating one to grow dreadlocks. Rastas also avoid drinking alcohol based on the Nazirite tradition.
The more you know!
I'm certain this will come up again. For today, we'll thank my friend for introducing us to the Nazirites, and leave John the Baptist crying out in the desert.
Come back again, and please share this writing.
Love.
The reader will forever be left grasping at this, I fear. A traditional view is that John the Baptist received his teaching by the same mechanism that the prophets of old had received theirs: by divine or angelic inspiration. There are countless such divine transmissions in The Old Testament to which one could refer to substantiate the possibility of this. The more scholastic view would be that John's end-of-the-times message was an offshoot or amalgamation of one or more of the varying contemporary eschatological sects or movements within the Semitic religions.
We must also face the possibility that Christian concepts from the late first century AD are being back-projected by the author of Matthew, and that John the Baptist said something substantially different than what The Gospel records. We can dispel this possibility some by reading what our old friend Josephus said about John, which we will do before long, but not today.
- How would John have defined "repentance?" -
Broadly, we can say that John would have defined "to repent" the same way the dictionary does today: to "feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's wrongdoing or sin."
John is telling the multitude to turn their heart away from "sin," again, broadly.
The idea of repentance occurs dozens of times in The Old Testament. The Jewish concept of the process of repentance evolved to be, in some cases, a very regimented thing. Gates of Repentance, a thirteenth century Jewish ethical writing, for example, lays out a list of things one must do in order to consider themselves "repentant," including:
- Regretting and acknowledging the sin or transgression.
- Forsaking the sin or transgression.
- Confessing the sin or transgression. And...
- Praying for atonement.
We cannot tell if John meant a specific kind of regimented repentance, or merely the expression of "sincere regret or remorse." We can be sure, though, that his use of the word repentance indicates that he feels the people he is talking to have sinned.
- How would John have defined sin?-
It is most likely that The Baptist defined sin the exact way Jews had long traditionally defined it - as a transgression against any of the nearly innumerable laws of the Tanakh which had been handed down directly from God over the lengthy history of their people. The author of Matthew certainly offers us no clue that John the Baptist has a view of sin that is different from this ancient definition.
From what we can ascertain in The Gospel, John clearly thinks of sin as both rampant and grave during his time. He basically accuses everyone living in the region (or perhaps all of Judaica, or perhaps everyone in the world) of harboring unrepented sin. Looking at the period in context, with the painful process of Hellenization recently complete in all of Palestine, and Rome breathing down everyone's neck, it's easy to see why some contemporary minds, John's included, looked at the situation and said: "we messed up somewhere. This occupation and its tumult are what have come of our sin. We must repent!"
We will find cause to study repentance and sin again and again in different contexts as we move forward.
-----
"What are Nazirite Vows?" one may ask. Well, you know I like etymology, so let's get that out of the way first. "Nazirite" derives originally from the Hebrew "nāzar" which means "to separate or consecrate oneself." That said, Nazirite Vows were vows of a kind of asceticism that existed within the Jewish tradition since early times. The Nazirite Vows are described in The Book of Numbers, written in the fifth century BC. The description is lengthy, so we won't read it here in its entirety. To follow along, open up your Bible to Numbers and check out 6:1-21.
The Nazirite Vow was a vow that male or female Jews alike could take. Like all vows, it was a promise to adhere to a set of obligations or austerities in order to attain some reward greater than what has been lost to the vow.
Austerities included in the Nazirite Vow:
Numbers 6:3 - "they shall abstain from wine and strong drink."
Numbers 6:4 - "they shall not eat anything of the produce of the grapevine; not even the seeds or the skins." (That's right y'all, no raisins.)
Numbers 6:5 - "no razor shall touch their hair," and they will "[let] the hair of their heads grow freely."
Numbers 6:6 - "they shall not come near a dead person." Explicitly, even if the corpse is family.
There are also a set of rules and some prescribed rituals for ending the period of one's vows, for whatever reason.
So, what's the reward for having taken these vows? In my best estimation, the reward is the same intangible "close-to-Godliness" offered by so many such vows in so many such faith systems around the world. In the words of the Book of Numbers, 6:8: "As long as they are nazirites they are holy to the Lord."
There has been some mix up over the centuries between "Nazarene" and "Nazirite," which is understandable, given that the Nazirites and Jesus were both kinds of ascetics. As we see in The Gospels, though, Jesus did drink wine and he did go near dead bodies. We can be fairly assured in saying that Jesus was not living under a Nazirite Vow during his ministry.
John the Baptist, however, is a different story. The Gospels show John as not imbibing (Luke 7:33), and we have no account of him going near a dead body. We can also stretch our knowledge of humankind a little and imagine that the man living in the desert eating locusts for breakfast hasn't had a haircut or a shave in a couple of weeks. John, therefore, is a good candidate for a possible Nazirite. We can say that the Biblical portrayal of John the Baptist doesn't, at least, rule him out of having been under The Nazirite Vow.
For the curious: everyone's favorite long-haired fellow from The Old Testament, Samson, was a "nazirite from birth" according to The Book of Judges.
The Rastafarian religion is built in part on Nazirite ideals, and the passages from Numbers that we read are cited by adherents as obligating one to grow dreadlocks. Rastas also avoid drinking alcohol based on the Nazirite tradition.
The more you know!
I'm certain this will come up again. For today, we'll thank my friend for introducing us to the Nazirites, and leave John the Baptist crying out in the desert.
Come back again, and please share this writing.
Love.
-------------------------
To read what's next, click here.
To read what's next, click here.
To read what came prior to this, click here.
