Matthew 3:10-12

And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which
bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. indeed ba!tise
you with water unto re!entance: but he that co"eth after "e is "ightier than ,
whose shoes a" not worthy to bear: he shall ba!tise you with the #oly $host, and
with fire: %hose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly !urge his floor, and gather
his wheat into the garner& but he will burn u! the chaff with un'uenchable fire.
In Jewish literature "fire" was a distinguishing feature of the final judgement. Fire
and water are two great natural purifying agencies, and it is appropriate that both should
be used to represent the regeneration of the heart. In a similar way, they are the two
agencies by means of which God has purified, or will purify, this earth from sin and
sinners (2 eter !"#$%&. If men persistently cling to sin, they must e'entually be
consumed with it( how much better it is to permit the )oly *pirit to carry forward the
purifying wor+ now, while probation still lingers, - man will be either purged of sin or
purged along with it. aul said, "Fire shall try e'ery man.s wor+" (/ 0or. !"/!&.
1he sense in which 0hrist was to baptise with fire is not certain. 1his statement
may ha'e pointed forward to entecost, when the disciples were baptised with the )oly
Ghost under the symbol of fire (-cts 2"!, 2&. -gain, it may refer to the fires of the last
day, as may be implied by the parallel nature of 3att. !"/2 (see on '. /2&. It may refer to
the grace of God purifying the soul. 4r, again, it may refer to the fiery trials that eter
spea+s of as testing the 0hristian (/ eter 2"/2( cf. 5u+e /2"26, #7&. erhaps the words of
John the 8aptist include more than one aspect of the 8ible symbolism relating to fire.
9hen John spo+e of "un:uenchable fire" he may ha'e had in mind the words of 3al. 2"/,
concerning the day of the 5ord, "that shall burn as an o'en," when all the wic+ed will "be
stubble." 1he fire of that great day, 3alachi continues, would "burn them up" so
completely that "neither root nor branch" would remain (ch. 2"/( see also ch. !"2, !&.
Far from con'eying the idea of a fire that burns eternally in which the wic+ed are
endlessly tormented, the *criptures emphasise the fact that the wic+ed are to be burned
up so completely that nothing will be left of them. 1he idea of an eternally burning hell
fire is foreign to the Inspired 9ord, as it is to the character of God. 1he *criptures state
concerning *odom and Gomorrah that they are "set forth for an e;ample, suffering the
'engeance of eternal fire" (Jude %( cf. 2 eter 2"<&. 8ut the fires that consumed those
wic+ed cities went out long ago( they are not burning today. =et those cities are gi'en as
an "e;ample" of what the fires of the last great day will be li+e.
In a similar way, Jeremiah predicted that God would +indle a fire in the gates of
Jerusalem that would consume e'en the palaces of the city, and "not be :uenched" (Jer.
/%"2%&. 1his was literally fulfilled a few years later when >ebuchadne??ar too+ the city,
in #@< b.c. (Jer. #2"/2, /!( cf. >eh. /"!&. Auite ob'iously the fire is not burning today. -s
chaff from a Judean threshing floor was utterly consumed, and nothing but ashes
remained, so the wic+ed will be burned with "un:uenchable fire" on the last great day
until nothing but their ashes remain (3al. 2"!&. 1he wages of sin is death (Bom. <"2!&,
eternal death, not eternal life miraculously preser'ed by a 'engeful God, in the midst of
fire that ne'er goes out. 1he righteous are promised eternal life (Bom. 2"%&, and the death
of the wic+ed will be as permanent as the life of the righteous CC *e'enthCday -d'entist
8ible 0ommentary.
Matthew (:1)
*hin+ not that a" co"e to destroy the law, or the !ro!hets: a" not co"e to
destroy, but to fulfil.
In the *ermon on the 3ount the -uthor of the law made clear the true meaning of
its precepts, and the way in which its precepts, would find e;pression in the thin+ing and
li'ing of citi?ens of the +ingdom )e had come to establish. 1he great 5awgi'er )imself
now reaffirmed the pronouncements of *inai as binding upon those who would be )is
subjects, and announced that anyone who should presume to annul them either by precept
or by e;ample would "in no case enter into the +ingdom of hea'en" (3att. #"27&.
1he assertion that by fulfilling the moral law 0hrist abrogated that law is not in harmony
with the conte;t of 0hrist.s statement. *uch an interpretation denies the meaning 0hrist
ob'iously intended to con'ey, by ma+ing )im 'irtually say, contradictorily, that )e did
not come to "destroy" the law, but by fulfilling it to "abrogate" it, 1he interpretation
ignores the strong antithesis in the word alla, "but," and ma+es the two ideas 'irtually
synonymous, 8y fulfilling the law 0hrist simply "filled" it "full" of meaningDby gi'ing
men an e;ample of perfect obedience to the will of God, in order that the same law
"might be fulfilled in us" (Bom. @"!, 2& CC *e'enthCday -d'entist 8ible 0ommentary.
Matthew (:1,
%hosoever therefore shall brea+ one of these least co""and"ents, and shall teach
"en so, he shall be called the least in the +ingdo" of heaven: but whosoever shall do
and teach them, the sa"e shall be called great in the +ingdo" of heaven.
8y using the wea+er form, "to loose", 0hrist may ha'e intended to show that e'en
a limited rela;ing of the commandments warrants the reputation of "least in the
+ingdom."
1he scribes had meticulously arranged all the precepts of the law of God, the laws of
3oses, ci'il and ceremonial, and their own regulations in a scale of relati'e importance,
on the presumption that when in conflict a re:uirement of lesser importance was nullified
by one of presumably greater importance. 8y means of this petty legalism it was possible
to de'ise means of circum'enting the plainest re:uirements of the law of God. For
illustrations of the application of this principle see 3att. 2!"2, /2, /%$/6, 2!, 22( 3ar+
%"%$/!( John %"2!. It was considered a rabbinical prerogati'e to declare certain actions
"permitted" or "forbidden." Jesus made it clear that, far from releasing men from the
precepts of the moral law, )e was e'en more strict than the official e;positors of the law,
the scribes and rabbis, for )e granted no e;ceptions at any time. -ll were e:ually and
permanently binding.
0ompare the e;ample of "Jeroboam, who did sin, and who made Israel to sin" (/
Eings /2"/<&.
0hrist in no way implied that one who bro+e the commandments and taught others to do
so would go to hea'en. )e here states clearly the attitude that the +ingdom will ta+e
toward lawbrea+ersDthe e'aluation that will be placed upon their characters. 1his point
is made clear in '. 27, where the "scribes and harisees," who bro+e the commandments
and taught others how they might do so, are emphatically e;cluded from the +ingdom CC
*e'enthCday -d'entist 8ible 0ommentary.
Matthew 10:2-
And fear not the" which +ill the body, but are not able to +ill the soul: but rather
fear hi" which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
1he Gree+ word translated soul here could mean "breath," "life," or "soul." It is translated
27 times in the >1 as "life" or "li'es," clearly with the meaning commonly attributed to
the word "life" (see chs. 2"27( <"2#( /<"2#( etc.&. It is rendered #@ times as "soul" or
"souls" (see chs. /7"2@( //"26( /2"/@( etc.&. In some of these instances it means simply
"people" (see -cts %"/2( 2%"!%( / eter !"27( etc.&. In other instances it is translated as, or
e:ui'alent to, some personal pronoun (see 3att. /2"/@( 2 0or. /2"/#( see on s. /<"/7&.
-t times it refers to the emotions (see 3ar+ /2"!2( 5u+e 2"!#( etc.&, to the natural
appetites (see Be'. /@"/2&, to the mind (see -cts /2"2( hil. /"2%&, or to the heart (see
Fph. <"<&. 1here is nothing in the word itself that e'en remotely implies a conscious
entity that is able to sur'i'e the death of the body and hence be immortal. In no instance
of its use in the 8ible does it refer to a conscious entity able to e;ist apart from the body.
1he 8ible +nows nothing of a li'ing, conscious soul that, supposedly, sur'i'es the body
CC *e'enthCday -d'entist 8ible 0ommentary.
Matthew 1(:11
.ot that which goeth into the "outh defileth a "an& but that which co"eth out of
the "outh, this defileth a "an.
-s a setting for this te;t, begin reading from 'erse 2. 1he Jews had a tradition
re:uiring that the hands should be ceremonially washed after each contact with a Gentile.
1hey chided Jesus and )is disciples for not following the custom. 0hrist responded with
the words of 'erse //" ">ot that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man( but that
which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."
In 'erse /#, eter said to Jesus, "Geclare unto us this parable." lease notice that
this is a parable and should not be literally applied. In fact, Jesus e;plained the parable so
that we need not speculate about the meaning. )e concluded )is e;planation with these
words, "For out of the heart proceed e'il thoughts, murders adulteries, fornications,
thefts, false witness, blasphemies" 1hese are the things which defile a man" but to eat with
unwashen hands defileth not a man." Herses /6, 27.
Get the pictureI 1he Jewish leaders were upset about the custom of ceremonial
washing of hands, while at the same time, they had murder in their hearts toward 0hrist.
Jesus was e;posing the absurdity of their posture. 1he ceremonial uncleanness was only
an imagined defilement. 1he :uestion of diet was not in'ol'ed at all. 1here was no eating
or drin+ing at the heart of the issue. It was ceremonial washing of the hands 'ersus
murder in the heart. 4ne defiled, and the other did not CC -nswers to Gifficult 8ible 1e;ts,
pp. 26, !7.
Matthew (:1)
*hin+ not that a" co"e to destroy the law, or the !ro!hets: a" not co"e to
destroy, but to fulfill.
In the *ermon on the 3ount the -uthor of the law made clear the true meaning of
its precepts, and the way in which its precepts, would find e;pression in the thin+ing and
li'ing of citi?ens of the +ingdom )e had come to establish. 1he great 5awgi'er )imself
now reaffirmed the pronouncements of *inai as binding upon those who would be )is
subjects, and announced that anyone who should presume to annul them either by precept
or by e;ample would "in no case enter into the +ingdom of hea'en" (3att. #"27&.
1he assertion that by fulfilling the moral law 0hrist abrogated that law is not in
harmony with the conte;t of 0hrist.s statement. *uch an interpretation denies the
meaning 0hrist ob'iously intended to con'ey, by ma+ing )im 'irtually say,
contradictorily, that )e did not come to "destroy" the law, but by fulfilling it to
"abrogate" it, 1he interpretation ignores the strong antithesis in the word , "but,"
and ma+es the two ideas 'irtually synonymous, 8y fulfilling the law 0hrist simply
"filled" it "full" of meaningDby gi'ing men an e;ample of perfect obedience to the will
of God, in order that the same law "might be fulfilled in us" (Bom. @"!, 2& CC *e'enthCday
-d'entist 8ible 0ommentary.
Matthew 1/:1-
And say also unto thee, *hat thou art 0eter, and u!on this roc+ will build "y
church& and the gates of hell shall not !revail against it.
1he father had re'ealed one truth ('. /%&( Jesus now adds to it another. 1hese
words ha'e been 'ariously interpreted" (/& that eter is Jthis roc+,K (2& that eter.s faith
in Jesus as the 0hrist is Jthis roc+,K (!& that 0hrist )imself is Jthis roc+.K ersuasi'e
reasons ha'e been set forth in fa'our of each of the three e;planations. 1he best way to
determine what 0hrist meant by these cryptic words is to in:uire of the *criptures
themsel'es what this figure of speech meant to Jewish listeners, particularly to those who
heard Jesus use it upon this occasion. 1he testimony of the writings of the disciples
themsel'es is ob'iously superior to what men ha'e since thought Jesus meant.
Fortunately, some of those who were eyewitnesses upon this occasion (see 2 eter /"/<( /
John /"/$!& ha'e left a record that is clear and une:ui'ocal.
For this part, eter, to whom the words were addressed, emphatically disclaims,
by his teachings, that the Jroc+K of which Jesus spo+e referred to him (see -cts 2"@$/2( /
eter 2"2$@&. 3atthew records the fact that Jesus again used the same figure of speech,
under circumstances that clearly call for the term to be understood of )imself (see on
3att. 2/"22( cf. 5u+e 27"/%, /@&. From 'ery early times the figure of a roc+ was used by
the )ebrew people as a specific term for God (see on Geut. !2"2( s. /@"2( etc.&. 1he
prophet Isaiah spea+s of 0hrist as Ja great roc+ in a weary landK (see on ch. !2"2&, and as
Ja precious corner stone, a sure foundationK (see on ch. 2@"/<&. aul affirms that 0hrist
was the JBoc+K that went with )is people in ancient times (see / 0or. /7"2( cf. Geut.
!2"2( 2 *am. 22"!2( s. /@"!/&. In a secondary sense the truths Jesus spo+e are also a
Jroc+K on which men may build safely and securely (see on 3att. %"22, 2#&, for )e
)imself is the li'ing J9ordK Jmade fleshK (see John /"/, /2( cf. 3ar+ @"!@( John !"!2(
<"<!, <@( /%"@&.
Jesus 0hrist is the Jroc+ of our sal'ationK (s. 6#"/( cf. Geut. !2"2, /#, /@&. )e
alone is the foundation of the church, for Jother foundation can no man lay than that is
laid, which is Jesus 0hristK (/ 0or. !"//&, Jneither is there sal'ation in any otherK (-cts
2"/2&. 0losely associated with Jesus 0hrist as Jthe chief corner stoneK in the foundation
of the church are Jthe apostles and prophetsK (Fph. 2"27&. In the same sense that 0hrist is
the Boc+, Ja li'ing stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God,K all who belie'e
in )im, Jas li'ely stones, are built up a spiritual houseK (/ eter 2"2, #&, Jfitly framed
together L an holy temple in the 5ordK (Fph. 2"2/&. 8ut Jesus is e'er and only the
JBoc+K on which the entire structure rests, for without )im there would be no church at
all. Faith in )im as the *on of God ma+es it possible for us also to become sons of God
(see John /"/2( / John !"/, 2&. 1he realisation that Jesus 0hrist is indeed the *on of God,
as eter emphatically affirmed upon this occasion (see 3att. /<"/<&, is the +ey to the door
of sal'ation. 8ut it is incidental, not fundamental, that eter was the first to recognise and
declare his faith, which, upon this occasion, he did as spo+esman for all the disciples (see
on '. /<&.
-ugustine (c. a.d. 277&, the greatest of 0atholic theologians of the early 0hristian
centuries, lea'es it for his readers to decide whether 0hrist here designated )imself or
eter as Jthe roc+K (Betractiones i. 2/. /&. 0hrysostom, the JgoldenCtonguedK preacher,
another Father of the early centuries, says that Jesus promised to lay the foundation of the
church upon eter.s confession Mnot on eterN, but elsewhere calls 0hrist )imself truly
our foundation (0ommentary on Galatians, ch. /"/$!( )omilies on / 1imothy, >o. ;'iii,
ch. <"2/&. Fusebius, the early church historian, :uotes 0lement of -le;andria as declaring
that eter and James and John did not stri'e for supremacy in the church at Jerusalem,
but chose James the Just as leader (0hurch )istory ii. /&. 4ther early Fathers of the
church, such as )ilary of -rles, taught the same.
It was only when scriptural support was sought in behalf of the claims of the
bishop of Bome to the primacy of the church (see Hol. IH, p. @!<& that the words of 0hrist
upon this occasion were ta+en from their original conte;t and interpreted to mean that
eter was Jthis roc+.K 5eo I was the first Boman pontiff to claim (about a.d. 22#& that his
authority came from 0hrist through eter. 4f him, Eenneth *cott 5atourette, a leading
church historian, says" J)e insisted that by 0hrist.s decree eter was the roc+, the
foundation, the doorC+eeper of the +ingdom of hea'en, set to bind and loose, whose
judgements retained their 'alidity in hea'en, and that through the ope, as his successor,
eter continued to perform the assignment which had been entrusted to himK (- )istory
of 0hristianity M/6#!N, p. /@<&. *trange indeed it is, that if this is really what 0hrist
meant, neither eter nor any other of the disciples, nor other 0hristians for four centuries
thereafter, disco'ered the fact, )ow e;traordinary that no Boman bishop disco'ered this
meaning in 0hrist.s words until a fifthCcentury bishop considered it necessary to find
some 8iblical support for papal primacy. 1he significance attributed to 0hrist.s words, by
which they are made to confer primacy upon the soCcalled successors of eter, the
bishops of Bome, is completely at 'ariance with all the teachings 0hrist ga'e to )is
followers (see ch. 2!"@, /7&.
erhaps the best e'idence that 0hrist did not appoint eter as the Jroc+K on which
)e would build )is church is the fact that none of those who heard 0hrist upon this
occasionDnot e'en eterDso construed )is words, either during the time that 0hrist was
on earth or later. )ad 0hrist made eter chief among the disciples, they would not
thereafter ha'e been in'ol'ed in repeated arguments about which of them Jshould be
accounted the greatestK (5u+e 22"22( see 3att. /@"/( 3ar+ 6"!!$!#( etc.&.
1he name eter is deri'ed from the Gr. , a Jstone,K generally a small slab of
stone. 1he word Jroc+K is the Gr. , the large mass of roc+ itself, a JledgeK or Jshelf
of roc+,K a Jroc+y pea+.K - is a large, fi;ed, immo'able Jroc+,K whereas a petros
is a small Jstone.K 1o what e;tent 0hrist may ha'e had this distinction in mind, howe'er,
or may ha'e e;plained it as )e spo+e, is a matter that cannot be determined from these
words themsel'es, because 0hrist certainly spo+e -ramaicDthe common language of
alestine at that time. 1he Gr. petros undoubtedly represents the word +epha (cephas& in
-ramaic (see on ch. 2"/@&. -nd, 'ery li+ely, petra also represents the -ramaic word +epha
though there is a possibility that 0hrist used some other synonym or e;pression in
-ramaic, which would agree with the distinction between petros and petra that is made
by the gospel writers in Gree+. It seems probable that 0hrist must ha'e intended to ma+e
such a distinction, howe'er, or 3atthew, writing in Gree+ and guided by the )oly *pirit,
would not ha'e made one.
4b'iously a petros, or small stone, would ma+e an impossible foundation for any edifice,
and Jesus here affirms that nothing less than a petra, or Jroc+,K could suffice. 1his fact is
made e'en more sure by the words of 0hrist in ch. %"22" J9hosoe'er heareth these
sayings of mine, and doeth themK is li+e Ja wise man, which built his house upon a roc+
MGr. petraN.K -ny edifice built upon eter, petros, a wea+, erring human being, as the
Gospel record ma+es plain, has a foundation little better than shifting sand (see on ch.
%"2%&.
$ates. In ancient cities the gate was the meeting place of the city fathers and the +ey
place in the defence of the city against an attac+ing army (see on Gen. /6"/( Joshua @"26&.
)ence to capture the gate would ma+e possible the capturing of the entire city.
0hrist.s triumph o'er death and the gra'e is the central truth of 0hristianity. It was not
possible for *atan to hold 0hrist with the cords of death (see -cts 2"22&, nor will it be
possible for him to hold any of those who belie'e in 0hrist (see John !"/<( Bom. <"2!&.
Figurati'ely spea+ing, *atan holds the Jgates of hell,K but 0hrist, by )is death, entered
*atan.s stronghold and bound the ad'ersary (see on 3att. /2"26&. Opon this sublime fact
rests the 0hristian.s hope of deli'erance from the wiles of *atan in this life, from his
power o'er the gra'e, and from his presence in the life to come. J1he last enemy that
shall be destroyed is deathK (/ 0or. /#"2<&. Geath and the gra'e will e'entually be Jcast
into the la+e of fireK (Be'. 27"/2&.
1o ma+e 0hrist.s words mean that the Jgates of hellK are not to pre'ail against
eter is to deny 0hrist.s own e;planation in 3att. /<"2/ (to which 's. /!$27 are
introductory&, and to ma+e eter.s reaction meaningless (see 's. 22, 2!& CC *e'enthCday
-d'entist 8ible 0ommentary, M3atthew /<"/@N.