Every chapter and Biblical paragraph give us an opportunity for a variety of messages, themes and styles. And even though there ought to be a blending of elements, most sermons emphasize one thing. One might be more of an exposition – revealing meanings of words, along with doctrines and instruction. Another might be more evangelical – for the lost, while a third could be more devotional – for the saint. Generally speaking, I would like my Sunday morning message to be evangelical, the evening message more didactic or instructional, and I hope to make our mid-week message as devotional as possible. Ideally, the member of the church should want and enjoy all three. And if he appreciates the Sunday messages, it would be hoped that he would appreciate the lesson on Wednesday as well. Another unofficial plan of mine, is to keep the Wednesday message just a little bit shorter than the rest. I know that most of you have worked today and that you are tired. I appreciate the fact that you are here on Wednesday nights, so I will do my best to be a blessing and not to punish you for coming. That doesn’t mean that the Lord might not convict and chastise you, but that is up to Him.
Please turn to Matthew 3:1-6 once again. As every Sunday School child quickly learns, John the Baptist was different from the run-of-the-mill Israelite. He dressed funny, and he ate strange food – at least from our point of view. Our question for the evening is “why?” I can’t answer that question with absolute assurance, but hopefully I can offer some suggestions which might produce a blessing and a lesson or two.
One of the things that is interesting is that John and his Lord, Jesus, were very different in this regard. Matthew 11 – “And … Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind? But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses. John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners…” Without trying to actually compare Christ and His forerunner, it should be noticed that God can use very different kinds of people to accomplish His will. But while I say that, I also declare, that NEITHER patterned himself after the world. They were both unworldly – but in entirely different ways. I firmly believe that if WE were less like the world – less worldly – we’d be more profitable unto the Lord.
And, I think that is why Matthew and the others tell us about John’s attire and diet. It seems to me that the Spirit’s primary purpose in these statements is to tell us that John didn’t care about the world, or what the world had to say about anything. And yet, I don’t think that he was trying to make a statement – it wasn’t an act of rebellion against the world, and the god of this world. I have no proof, but it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that he had so little interest in fashion, football players, American Idol, Hollywood and television that he didn’t even accidentally appear to be like everyone else.
The experts argue about what this camel’s hair garment was like. We know that it wasn’t soft and luxurious, because the Lord Jesus said that John didn’t wear “soft raiment.” But some people think that John wore clothing which had been woven out of rough camel hair fibers. Others say, No, what John wore was the actual untanned hide of the camel with the hair still attached. Some say that this hair was on the inside next to the skin, with or without underwear. Others say that the hair was on the outside and that the rough skin of the camel was next to John’s skin. If you have ever touched the unfinished hide of an animal, you know that it can be like stiff sandpaper. If John was wearing this untanned camel hide, then what is the meaning of the next statement? “And the same John had his raiment of camel’s hair, AND a leathern girdle about his loins.” If his camel’s hair was untanned leather, then why mention that he also wore a wide leather “belt”? The word “girdle” is twice translated “purse,” because it was often folded over so that it created a kind of pouch which went around the body, and which then would act like a large pocket for carrying just about anything.
Why did John wear this kind of attire, even if it was material spun and then woven into camel cloth? Because it was practical and easy to obtain, especially by someone who had very little money. I doubt that it was a statement and a deliberate attempt to demean himself in the eyes of the world. He wasn’t trying to make himself into some kind of spectacle; he wasn’t trying to be some sort of odd-ball. He was different from the world, simply because he was not of this world – he was Christian. He had no time, nor money to get dressed up like the scribes and Pharisees.
Furthermore he ate locusts and wild honey for the same reason. Some really smart people try to say that these locusts were the fruit of, or some part of, a special tree. Why is it that so very often the 4-year-old from Sunday School is smarter that the man with the PhD? I don’t see any reason not to think that these were insects – similar to grasshoppers. There were at least four species that were common and plentiful in eastern Judea during John’s day. It is also said that wild honey was plentiful and easily accessible – if one didn’t mind the bees. The nutrition of both of these is also well-known – protein, carbohydrates, and probably lots of vitamins. Some say that the locusts were dried and mixed in the honey, or dipped in the honey like ketchup. Other suggest that the insects could have been cooked in some sort of honey sauce. Whatever it was, I have no reason not to take Matthew at face value here.
And again, this kind of diet was inexpensive and readily available – easy to obtain. John ate this food because it was there, not because he was trying to make some kind of statement. In fact he was probably not the only one out there in the wilderness who ate or dressed like this.
I believe that we should eat in order to live. This is a difficult point – it is for me and probably for every one of us. We shouldn’t eat in order to please our neighbors, or the advertisers who are trying to get our business. And we shouldn’t eat in order to please our own fleshly desires. “I would never eat a locust, an ant, or a beatle.” Oh, well then I guess that you’ve never really been hungry enough. You probably eat things that people in other cultures would never put in their mouths – Doritos?
And again, I raise the question of where John had grown up, and who had cared for him. How long ago had his elderly parents died? How well-stricken in age had they been when he was born? When did he move into the wilderness? Did he live alone most of his life? Did he learn to dress himself and feed himself without any adult female guidance? These are questions which we may never have answered. But were these things a part of the reason that he dressed and ate this way? When was the last time that blessed God for your parents?
In Matthew 17 just after the transfiguration, we read – “Why … say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.” I won’t take time to outline the life of Elijah, or as the New Testament says – “Elias.” But there is one incident described in I Kings 1, when King Ahaziah had been injured through a fall. In order to make plans, he sent some of his men to enquire from a false god about his future. While they were going, they were stopped by a strange looking man, who told them to return to their wicked king and tell him that he was going to die. They did what they were told, and Ahaziah demanded to know what the man looked like. “And they answered him, He was an hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins. And he said, It is Elijah the Tishbite.” Most commentaries say that Elijah’s hairiness, was from this hairy clothing, not from his head and beard.
Elijah was one of the more eminent servants of God in the Old Testament. God ordained that John, one of His more eminent servants in the New Testament, would be, in many ways, like Elijah. And for those whose hearts the Lord had prepared, they could see how John was like Elijah. Whether it was intentional on John’s part or just a divinely-governed “incidental,” Jesus’ forerunner, carried with him the aura of one of God’s prophets. Zechariah 13:4 even speaks of this kind of attire as being “prophet’s garb.”
Matthew described John so we might see, as some people did in their day, that John was a servant of Jehovah. I can’t say whether or not my appearance or attire, speaks that same kind of message. But I can say, that I could dress a lot more causally, and in doing so, I definitely would not look like John. I believe that I have an obligation to dress respectfully and in a fashion that gives honour to the Lord, because I am one of His servants. Preaching in blue jeans and an Hawaiian shirt may appeal to the unchurched masses, but I don’t think that it has anything to do with the way that John was dressed. Furthermore, I believe that all of us have the responsibility to make sure that the world does not dictate to us the way that we behave, the way that we dress, the things that we eat, or the way that we worship. John was a New Testament servant of God, who was identified himself as such by his somewhat Old Testament attire.
I believe that the Bible teaches – through men like John – and in other ways, that all of us, as Christians, should not dress like the world. In the Seattle airport there was a man and woman and two older teenage boys, waiting to get on our plane. One of those boys, had some pants which were so loose that they crested at or below the maximum jut of his posterior. He was having difficulty keeping them from falling to his ankles. I have no idea how he could walk without tripping over them. If that young man had come to me and told me that he was a child of God, I might have laughed in his face. His nice blue boxer underwear testified to me that he was not a Christian. It told me that he couldn’t think for himself – that he was a slave to his society and the god of the world. And how do I know? Because the Bible tells the Christian to not love the world and its fashions. To dress like that is contrary to logic and common sense; it is to bow before worldly fashion. The Bible says that to love the world – and that includes its fashions – means the hatred of God. “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” That preacher – dressed in the same attire that he wears to the zoo or to the beach – doesn’t tell the world that He is a servant of God. He tells the world that he is one of them – a worldling.
John loved not the world, neither the things that were in the world in his day. Why? Because the love of the Father was in him. He was there to prepare the way of the Lord. He had work to do, and he was dressed for that work.
That is one of the reasons that John’s attire was described to us here in this scripture.