THE
LIFE, CHARACTER, AND ACTS
OF
JOHN THE BAPTIST;
AND THE RELATION OF HIS
MINISTRY TO THE CHRISTIAN DISPENSATION.
BASED UPON THE JOHANNES DER TAUFER OF L. VON ROHDEN
BY
WILLIAM   C. DUNCAN, D. D.,
AUTHOR OF THE "HISTORY OF TIIE EARLY BAPTISTS," "PULPIT GIFT BOOK,"
"TEARS OF JESUS OF NAZARETH," ETC.
FIFTH EDITION: CORRECTED AND ENLARGED.
NEW YORK:
SHELDON & COMPANY, 115 NASSAU STREET.
NEW ORLEANS: WILLIAM DUNCAN.
1860.




Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1853, by
CORNISH, LAMPORT             &  CO.,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for the
Southern District of New York.
Stereotyped by VINCENT DILL,
29 & 31 Beekman St., N. Y.




PREFACE.
THE basis of the present treatise is a German monography written by L. Von Rohden, of Liibeck, and published by him in 1838, under the title "Johannes der
Taufer in seinem Leben und Wirken, dargestellt nach
dell Zeugnissen der heiligen Schrift."  The book is
commended by Neander, in his Life of Christ, as " the
production of a promising young theologian of Lubeck,
and a work well fitted for general circulation."
The whole of the treatise of Von Rohden has been
translated and is presented in this volume. Carefully
elaborated additional matter, however, amounting to
from one-third to one-half as much as the original
work, has been incorporated into the body of the monography; and much has been given in the form of critical and explanatory notes, of which only a few, and
those of little value, are found in Von Rohden. In this
way the treatise has not only been adapted more completely to the wants of the general reader, but has also
been converted into a convenient manual of reference
for the use of such as are interested in biblical studies,
on all points relating to the history and labors of John
the Baptist.
In preparing the material which has been added, the




iv                  PREFACE.
author has had constant reference to those critical authorities which treat most fundamentally of the various
topics which have come under consideration. Among
the writers to whom he is most indebted, whom indeed
he has carefully consulted on every point of importance,
he would mention J. G. E. Leopold, monography on
John the Baptist, entitled " Johannes der Taufer, eine
biblische Untersuchung" (published in 1825); Dr. A.
Neander, Leben Jesu (Life of Jesus); Dr. G. B. Winer,
Biblisches Realwirterbuch; Prof. J. L. Jacobi, in
Kitto's Cyclop. of Bib. Literature; Drs. A. Tholuck
and F. Licke, Commentaries on the Gospel of John;
and, in their New Testament Commentaries, Dr. S. T.
Bloomfield, Henry Alford, M. A., and Drs. H. Olshausen, W. M. L. De Wette and H. A. W. Meyer.
This is the first book devoted exclusively to the treatment of the life and ministry of John the Baptist which
has ever appeared in the English language. The subjects which it considers the author has attempted to
discuss with thoroughness and with impartiality. If
his treatise shall be found to fill a place hitherto untenanted in English religious literature, he will be
abundantly rewarded for his labors.
W. C. D.
New Orleans, Sept. 15., 1852.




PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION.
THE difficulty of treating, in a satisfactory manner, subjects
which admit of so much discussion, and so much fair difference of opinion, as the Life, Character, and Acts of John
the Baptist, can be known only to those who have attempted
a similar kind of composition. No two candid writers, even
of a like theological training, could, by any possibility, harmonize in all points in composing a complete Life of the
Forerunner; if they should attempt, as is done in this volume, to determine the nature of his mission, and to describe
his character, upon the basis of an exegetical examination
of all the passages which are found relating to him in the
New Testament. A general and not a minute correspondence of views, is all that can, in such a case, be properly
expected.  Those, then, of any system  of religious belief,
who hope to find all their own ideas of the Forerunner reproduced and reflected in this Treatise, will find their expectations disappointed. The book is the result of an independent, and, it is believed, thorough, examination of the topics
discussed in its pages; and it was written with no other
object or hope, than the discovery and disclosure of the truth
as far as it relates to the Ministry of John the Baptist.
The Author is gratified by the distinguished marks of favor
with which his work has been very generally received. Its
popularity is sufficiently evinced by the fact that, within less'
than a year from its first publication, it has passed through
four editions. The fifth edition now makes its appearance.
In this, a number of typographical errors which found their
way into the first and subsequent editions, has been corrected; and alterations have been made in portions of the
book, where the original text was liable to be misconceived.




Vi                     PREFACE.
New pages of interesting and pertinent matter have been
added, in several parts of the Treatise, particularly in the coneluding chapter; and such changes and improvements have
been made, as could be affected in a stereotyped work.
Since the publication of the first edition, there has appeared, in Germany, a work by Prof. Gams, of Hildesheim,
on "John the Baptist in Prison," which discusses its subject
in a space of 296 pages; and also a treatise of 41 pages, by
B. Gademann of Miinchberg, on the "Relation of John' the
Baptist to the Lord, according to the Evangelical Accounts";
published in the last number of Rudlebach and Guericke's
"Zeitschift" for 1852.-From  England, besides Huxtable
on the "Ministry of S. John the Baptist," a thorough treatise, but reaching only to 67 pages (published in 1848),-the
Author has received Dr. Wm. Bell's " Enquiry into the Divine Missions of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ,"-a
work of 345 pages, published in the last century, which is,wholly occupied with proving from the connection of John
and Jesus with each other, that the mission of each must
have been divine. It is not, therefore, properly speaking, a
treatise on " the life and ministry" of the Baptist. He has
obtained, moreover, Dr. George Horne's " Considerations on
the Life and Death of John the Baptist"; a work published
first about 1769, the aim of which is " to deduce moral and
religious reflections from the circumstances and conduct of
the Baptist." A " Portrait of John the Baptist," by Henry Belfrage, D.D.,-published in 1830 in Edinburgh, but unknown in
1852 to the Author of the present Treatise,-has also been
received. The picture of the Forerunner presented in this neat
duodecimo of 237 pages is a fine conception finely executed. A
series of Articles on the Baptist, by Judge Joel Jones (of
America), will be found in Vol. IV. of the " Jewish Chronicle."
October 1st, 1859.




TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PART FIRST:    PRELIMINARY SKETCH.
Page
CHAPTER I:   Condition of the Jewish People in a theocratic point of view at the time of the
Birth of John,... 
CHAPTER II: Prophecies and.Expectations regarding the
Baptist,.....  22
PART SECOND: JOHN BEFORE HIS PUBLIC APPEARANCE.
CHAPTER I:   Birth of the Baptist,...   85
CHAPTER II:  John's Family Relations,..  52
CHAPTER III: Development of John and Preparation for
his Public Ministry,.         76
PART THIRD: MINISTRY OF JOHN BEFORE THE PUBLIC APPEARANCE OF CHRIST.
CHAPTER I:   John's Preaching of Repentance,..  94
CHAPTER II:  John's Baptism,.... 117
CHAPTER III: Effects of the Ministry of John among the
People,....138
CHAPTER IV: The Baptism of Jesus,...      150
PART FOURTH: JOHN AFTER THE PUBLIC APPEARANCE OF
THE MESSIAH.
CHAPTER I:   John's Testimony respecting Christ,. 172
CHAPTER II: The Disciples of the Baptist,... 191




111                      CONTENTS.
Page
CHAPTER III: Reference of his Disciples to Christ,. 198
CHAPTER IV: Relation of the Baptism of John to that of
the Disciples of Christ and to Christian
Baptism,......   205
PART FIFTH:     CLOSE OF THE BAPTIST'S MINISTRY.
CHAPTER I:    John's Imprisonment,.. 224
CHAPTER II: The Baptist's Doubts in Prison, and his
Mission of Inquiry to Jesus,.    233
CHAPTER III: John's Death.-Glance at his Character
and his Importance for the Development
of the Kingdom of God,             253




PART FIRST.'RELIMINARY      SKETCH.
CHAPTER     T.
CONDITION OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE IN A THEOCRATIC POINT
OF VIEW, AT THE TIME OF THE BIRTH OF JOHN.
FOR four hundred years had the voice of the prophets been
silent, when the man was born who was to uplift it for the
last time, and who, as the closing point of the whole Old
Testament theocracy, was to exhibit that theocracy in its
highest brilliancy, ere it was extinguished forever. Only so
long as they needed constant warning, correction and punishment, that they might not fall away from the worship of the
true God, which had been enjoined upon them from of old,
and engage in the enticing idol-worship of the surrounding
nations, only so long had God conversed with his people by
men specially inspired. When, however, the rigid punishment
of the seventy years' exile had purified the nation, and had
grounded them immovably in the faith on one God, Jehovah
ceased to make known his will by special interpreters. The
time had now come in which the Jewish nation was to atone
for its great guilt by lasting repentance and by meek and
trustful submission, and when it was, by means of an assiduous
examination of its holy books, to prepare itself more and more
for understanding the advent of him who should fulfill the law




10 CONDITION OF THE JEWS IN A THEOCRATIC POINT OF VIEW,
and the prophets; when it should, through the agency of the
numerous storms which shook the state politic, its grievous
civil disorders and servile subjection to a foreign yoke, be
aroused to an increasing attention to itself, to a knowledge of
its sinfulness, and to a longing after. a spiritual deliverer;
when, finally, a belief in the one God of the Jews should
spread itself from that nation yet farther among other people,
and constitute a firm connecting link for the later proclamation of the gospel among the heathen.
While, however, this last object was completely attained,
by means of the varied connections formed by the Jews with
heathen nations, by means of the partial subjection of Palestine to the Romans, and by means of the dispersion and settlement of a great number of Jews in heathen lands,-as was
shown to be true, in particular, on the first proclamation of
the gospel by the Apostles, when the proselytes who embraced
the faith did so more readily not only than the heathen, but
even more readily than the Jews themselves,-the fulfillment
of the divine views respecting the agency of the Israelites
themselves in proclaiming the gospel, was limited to a very
small number of that people. A part of the nation, either
reduced to despair at the sight of continued political troubles,
and in view of the ignominious subjection of the holy people,
surrendered by degrees their belief in a coming deliverer, or,
on account of the long delay in his advent, doubted respecting
the personality of the promised Messiah, and, spiritualizing the
prophecies, referred them to the light and salvation which
were to be spread abroad by the Jewish people, conceived as
an individual, among all heathen nations. Others, on the
contrary, held on with unshaken determination to the expectation of a personal Messiah who was soon to appear; but,




IT THE TIME OF THE BIRTH OF JOHN.       1 
as their mind'and thoughts were directed only to earthly happiness, to deliverance from the hard yoke under which they
sighed, to riches and honor, there was formed among them a
conception of the promised Redeemer corresponding to these
expectations. They thought of him as a mighty theocratic
king after the -likeness of David, who would with conquering
arm prostrate to the dust all the enemies of the holy people,
and create for them a power and dominion over the whole
earth such as had never before been known; to whom every
knee should bow after an earthly manner, and who should
shower down upon his subjects all earthly goods without cessation and without measure.
While external political commotions, considered favorable
to their views by the one class, but thought destructive of
their expectations by the other, produced among the people
either a stupid indifference to all promises, which they supposed
they needed no longer, or gave birth to utter hopelessness or
to distorted hopes,-the study of the sacred writings wrought
out, among the majority, a knowledge opposed to that revealed
from on high. One class of minds remained firm in their adherence to the letter of the Old Testament, without penetrating to its spiritual sense, busied themselves with trifling
interpretations and with making onerous additions to the law,
believing that they could obtain wisdom by means of insipid
mystifications of its written characters, and so obscured the
clear sense of holy writ by their peculiar conceits that they
could no longer find their way out of the labyrinth of their
own statutes to the simple words of the Lord. A second
class, observing the indiscretion of the former, contended indeed for the written revelation, apart from all human additions
or admixtures; but they gave themselves little trouble, or they




12 CONDITION OF THE JEWS IN A THEOCRATIC POINT OF VIEW,
understood not how, to search into the inner meaning of what
was written, and, through their indifference towards all religion, in particular to all of a higher character, passed by the
prophets especially with indifference, if they did not reject
them altogether; while they interpreted every part of Scripture according to its fleshly sense, and, adopting from one
passage whatever was pleasing to their ears, endeavored to
make the rest conform to their extorted interpretation. Naturally enough, neither mystic nor cabalistic speculations,
united with the most absurd literal interpretations, nor yet an
obstinate adherence to the written words in opposition to all
human explanations, and its accompanying stupid ignorance
of the meaning of all which went beyond ordinary earthly,
nay, even animal, wants and enjoyments, could be made the
means of leading the people to a knowledge of the true condition of their hearts, which was, in fact, the real cause of all
the mournful calamities which, falling one after another upon
the Jewish nation, were specially intended to break its hardheartedness as with an iron hammer, and to bring the people
to a consciousness of their own sinfulness and of the necessity
of a deliverer from their internal enemy. External morality
and propriety of conduct were, with most, the object of their
strivings; on the attainment of which they imagined that they
had performed their whole duty, and sufficiently assured themselves of the favor of God, especially if, in addition to the
practice of outward morality, they recognized him with their
mouths as the true and living Jehovah. Those, on the other
hand, who looked with eagerness for the coming of their
earthly Messiah, supposed, in accordance with their material
conceptions respecting him and the divine intention regarding
themselves, that they, as legitimate descendants of Abraham,




AT THE TIME OF THE BIRTH OF JOHN.        13
had an inalienable right to share in his glorious dominion. It
did not occur to them to doubt whether a fleshly descent from
Abraham would be sufficient; for they scarcely imagined that
a condition wholly different would be required for entrance
into the Messianic kingdom.
The current opinion among the Jews at the birth of Christ,
and for some time previous to his coming, was that the Messiah would be a mere temporal ruler, a king who would reign
over not only the Israelites but the whole world.. This opinion
was held not merely by the common people, but by most of
the Pharisees and lawyers of the nation. It was grounded
upon such passages of the Old Testament as Ps. 2: 2., 6-8.,
Jer. 23: 5, 6., Zech. 9: 9, 10. This expectation is spoken of
by Josephus, Jewish War, 6. 5. 4., where he says that his
countrymen were chiefly induced to undertake the contest
which ended in the destruction of Jerusalem, by "an ambiguous oracle which was found also in their sacred writings, that'about that time one from their country should become ruler
of the inhabitable earth.'"  Suetonius, also, and Tacitus, both
heathen writers, bear testimony to the prevalence of this expectation throughout the entire East; the former of whom
says ( Vespas. c. 4.): "There had been spread abroad throughout the entire East an ancient and fixed opinion that it was in
accordance with the decrees of the Fates that the Jews should
go forth at that time and take possession of the world;"*
while the latter remarks (Hist. v. 13.): "Many were persuaded that there was contained in the ancient records of the
priests a prediction that the East would at that very time
acquire strength, and that proceeding forth from Judea they
* Percrebruerat Oriente toto vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis ut eo tern
pore Judai profecti rerum potirentur.




14  CONDITION OF THE JEWS IN A THEOCRATIC POINT OF VIEW,
would take possession of the world."*  We find accordingly
that the less spiritual of those who acknowledged Jesus to be
the Messiah desired, while he was yet living, to proclaim him
king (Jno. 6: 15. coll. Matt. 21: 8, 9.). Yet together with
this fundamental error they entertained other ideas of the
Messiah, some of which were more correct; as, for instance,
that he would be born at Bethlehem, of the line of David, but
of obscure parents (Jno. 7: 42. coll. Is. 11: 1.. Jer. 23: 5.,
Mic. 5: 2.); that he would perform great miracles (Jno. 7:
31.); and that he would never die (Jno. 12: 34. coll. Ps.
110: 4., Dan. 7: 14.).
In this manner was the wilderness created in which a way
was now to be built for the Lord by the preaching of the newcommissioned prophet; but the quagmires of human error and
corruption were here evidently too deep, and the ruins and
rubbish of selfish and self:sufficient wisdom and justice heaped
up too densely, to permit a way for the entrance of the Lord
into the hearts of the people to be prepared very soon, and,
in most cases, by any means whatsoever. Above all, that
cold-hearted sect that is known under the name of Sadducees,
which, carrying to the utmost extreme its opposition to the
human arbitrary additions to holy writ which were in vogue
among the sect of the Pharisees, either received the doctrine
of Moses in dead orthodoxy, and would not recognize the
representation of it given by God himself in the prophets,
because it was foreign to their feelings and unintelligible, or,
in general, they allowed what was written to remain written,
and suffered it to have no further control over or influence
upon their hearts; and so, walled up within their own cold
* Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum litteris contineri, eo ipso
tempore fore ut valesceret Oriens, profeotique Judaea rerum potirentur.




AT THE TIME OF THE BIRTH OF JOHN.        15
intellectual wisdom, they could only laugh scornfully and
shrug their shoulders at the intelligence and demands which
John was to bring, and of which they had not the remotest
conception.
Just as little could the Pharisees, with their fleshly expectations of the Messiah,-certain as they thought themselves to
be of sharing in his kingdom,-with their external holiness
constantly displayed before the eyes of the people, and with
the punctilious conscientiousness with which they fulfilled, in
public, the very letter of the divine law, and every commandment of their own or their forefathers' invention (for it is obvious that it -is not difficult to fulfill the letter of the law externally), conceive how repentance and forgiveness of sin
should be preached to them; and when, in addition to this,
they were conscious, as the greater number of them was, of
their endeavors to deceive God and men, their pride and their
lust after sin were altogether too great to permit them to acknowledge their wickedness and their need of repentance and
salvation; and, in consequence, hardening themselves with
haughty contempt, and therefore hardened by God, they
passed, unmoved, by the man who was sent to call their attention to their true condition, and to inform them what they
needed in order to be made partakers of the coming salvation
(cp. Luke 7: 30.).
Meanwhile, however, there were also some among the Pharisees, as we learn from the gospel history, who thought seriously within themselves of their sanctification, and who strove
with uprightness to fulfill the law in every point, and hoped
thereby to assure themselves of the divine favor. Even these
recognized, at first, only the external side of the divine commandments, and had not yet penetrated to their internal and




16  CONDITION OF THE JEWS IN A THEOCRATIC POINT OF VIEW,
spiritual meaning; they too had not yet attained to a right
understanding of the real condition of their own hearts, which
was the, root of their sinfulness; they also placed too much
reliance upon the performance of external observances, ceremonies, and rites; but they still earnestly desired, while
treading the wrong way, to discover the right; and they only
needed to have their eyes gradually, or, as oftener happened,
suddenly opened, and they would at once perceive, when undeceived respecting these external ceremonies and made acquainted with their own high destiny, the foly of such outward
observances, and would be brought to a knowledge of the
Saviour. From among these the voice of the forerunner
might and afterwards did win many to the Lord.
There was still another sect among the Jews of that time;
but they pertained less to the sphere of the labors of the Baptist, on account of their seclusion and wide removal from the
theatre of religious and political events then occurring. These
were the Essenes, a company of men who, having actually
reached a consciousness of their great spiritual necessities, had
withdrawn from the vortex of the world and its false hypocritical strivings, and established themselves in the region beyond
the Red Sea; where they passed a life devoted to God in
quiet contemplation, and, like the nobler mystics of all times,
sought to be wholly absorbed in God and in his revelation.
Among these pious people, one might suppose, would John's
proclamation of the true salvation which was about to appear,
have been followed by the most important consequences; and,
in point of fact, their former mode of life proved for many of
them a transition step towards Christianity; but others again
were so much occupied with their theosophic speculations, expected so confidently to find in these their highest happiness,




Ar THE TIME OF THE BIRTH OF JOHN.        17
were so proud of their virtue, and so contemptuous in their
treatment of those who, in their estimation, were far inferior to
them in morality aswell as in knowledge, that they were unable
to tear themselves away from their imaginary felicity, in order
to place themselves on a level with the despised populace, and
were unwilling to strive anew with the severest self-denial to
obtain nothing better than -what they were also to receive.
This overvaluation, therefore, of their own peculiar maxims and
of their own piety, led them away from rather than towards
the Redeemer.
Since by far the greatest portion of those whose tendencies
have just been described came to the preaching of John with
dumb ears and hardened hearts, one might conclude that
neither he nor his more distinguished successor could have produced any considerable change in the religious condition of the
Jewish people. And such in truth would have been the result,
had there not been found, besides those hearts which were entangled in unbelief or bigotry, in indifference or anxiety, yet
others, confessedly a small number, who received with trust
and so much the more joyfully the word of God, believed his
prophecies, and were led from a right understanding of their
own character to a very nearly correct knowledge of the predictions respecting the Messiah which are recorded in the Old
Testament. We speak not here of the mass of the common
people, who, lending themselves to every impression, as they
heard gladly all that was new, listened with pleasure also to
the discourses and exhortations of the Baptist, acknowledged
him as a prophet and spread abroad his fame, but, for the most
part, without suffering, his words to find a deep entrance into
their minds, and without doing what he commanded. Even if,
at times, they were struck for the moment with the truth of




18 CONDITION OF THE JEWS IN A THEOCRATIC POINT OF VIEW,
his preaching, even if they were filled for a season with good
resolutions, they permitted not what they had received with
half a heart, if not with half an ear, to take deep root in their
soul; for the next new impression would scatter the building,
yet scarcely begun, in total ruin; the next new temptation
would summon all their sinful desires and passions once more
from their fresh-made grave. These were not they out of whom
the exhortations and announcements of the Baptist could prepare a susceptible and fertile soil from which the seed he sowed
would joyfully spring forth and produce abundant fruit.
We refer rather to another smaller circle of souls whose
names were written in the book of life, who did actually, in
accordance with the will of God, let the great sufferings of
their time serve as a means of making them more attentive to
their own personal condition, of leading them to seek in themselves for the causes of those troubles which they at least so
patiently endured, and of causing them, in consequence, to begin rooting out the evil that was within them before they
busied themselves with the improvement of their political condition. These must soon have come to the conviction that
evil was far too deeply rooted in their hearts, its poison had
diffused itself far too widely in their veins, for them to stifle it
by their own strength, or for anything external to be able to
cast it out; and thus had they been led by their feeling of
necessity to a longing for a Messiah who could, first and before
all, free them from their spiritual misery, and lead them back
to peace with themselves and with God. Guided by their own
necessities and by the knowledge obtained from their own condition, and enlightened by the divine Spirit, obtained in answer
to their prayers, they came now with altogether different sentiments to an examination of the holy Scriptures, especially of




AT THE TIME OF THE BIRTH OF JOHN        19
the booksbof the prophets. They soon discovered, in promises
given before, long before, just such a Messiah announced as
they desired to behold; and, though ideas of the earthly greatness and royalty of him that was expected mingled with more
correct conceptions in their but partially enlightened minds,
redemption from the guilt of their sins remained always the
main subject of their thoughts and expectations. Right well,
therefore, did they understand John; and right gladly did they
receive the embassy which proclaimed to them the true and
longed-for Messiah. At a later period, it could not have been
difficult for them to become better acquainted with the true
end.of Christ's existence, and to yield, one after another, as
they did, their erroneous opinions respecting his earthly domination, without surrendering in any degree their faith in him
as the only true Redeemer.
The number of this class was small, only such belonging to
it whose minds were most deeply impressed with a feeling of
their religious necessities; and even these entertained among
their more correct ideas the additional false expectation that
Christ would be a temporal sovereign. The disciples of Jesus
themselves; in despite of all the instruction which they had
received to the contrary during their intercourse with their
divine teacher, did not give up their hopes of his restoring
Israel to earthly grandeur, until after the resurrection (Acts
1: 6. coll. Matt. 20: 20, 21., Luke 24: 21.). It cannot be
expected, therefore, that the other pious worthies of the nation
who also cherished comparatively true views respecting the
Messiah, should have been able to divest themselves of their incorrect conceptions, and have looked for a prince whose reign
should be wholly spiritual., It is a singular fact, however, and
one worthy of being noted, that the Samaritans, a people of




20 CONDITION OF THE JEWS IN A THEOCRATIC POINT OF VIEW,
heathen origin intermixed with Hebrews, who received the Pentateuch (or, Five Bpoks of Moses), entertained ideas respecting
the Messiah which were more consonant with the truth than
those of the Jews themselves. The political element was not
at all mingled with their expectations; for they looked merely
for a prophet who should inculcate religious truth, and convert the people from their sins unto holiness. Their conceptions of the Messiah, whom they appear to have expected under
the name Shaheb, or Taheb (Conversor, i. e. Converter), were
probably based upon Deut. 18: 15., with reference also, perhaps, to such passages as Gen. 12: 3., 18: 18., 22: 18., 26: 4.,
28: 14.; but though they seem to have been correct as far as
they went, they were, of course, quite meagre and imperfect
(Jno. 4: 25. ff.). This expectation of theirs served as a preparation for their reception of the doctrines of Christianity,
both as taught by Jesus himself (Jno. 4: 39, 40.), and as
proclaimed by the Apostles (Acts 8:. 5. ff., 9: 31., 15: 3.).*
Of these elements, which existed in about the same proportions, with greater or less gradations and shades of difference,
in general among the whole Jewish people (and, perhaps, every" There exists at this day a remnant of the Samaritan people. They are reduced to a few families, dwelling in Nablus, the ancient Shechem, whence they
go three times a year to worship, as did their ancestors, on Mount Gerizim.
They yet retain and make use of the Mosaic law, in the form known as the
Samaritan Pentateuch; but the language which they employ in their ordinary
transactions is the Arabic. They still adhere to the Mosaic institutions; they
rigidly observe the Sabbath; celebrate only the Mosaic feasts; observe the
year of jubilee; believe firmly in the unity of God; allow no image of Jehovah;
practice circumcision and holy lustrations; believe in angels and the resurrection, and annul marriage only according to the prescriptions of the Mosaic law.
(Winer, Realwoirterbuch, Art. Samaritaner). For further information regarding these modern Samaritans, see Robinson, Bibl. Researches, vol. 3. p. 96-136,
and the account of Mr. Fisk in the Amer. Miss. Herald for 1824.




AT THE TIME OF THE BIRTH OF JOHN.        21
where, and at all times), was the multitude composed to which
John was to proclaim the approaching Saviour. For all was
his appearance alike necessary; the slothful and sleeping were
to be aroused from their dreaming; self-blinded religionists and
hypocrites were to be exposed in their true colors; those who
were running to no purpose in pursuit of a false object were to
have their fruitless and hasty endeavors exhibited before their
eyes; the proud in their self-made justice were to be made
weak in their confidence; while those who were hoping in quiet
and struggling on in the path of rectitude, were to be filled
with joy and introduced to him who should prove to them their
all in all. Thus, in the sending of John, God gave unto all an
opportunity to gain clear information respecting themselves and
the coming Messiah; and those who were deaf to his word and
hardened their hearts, had, therefore, no valid excuse for their
guilt. This work of God's was one of divine mercy; but, as is
always the case in the dealings of his providence, it proved a
curse and a witness against those who proudly turned their
ba-ks upon the invitatior, and let it pass them with indifference.




22 PROPHECIES AND EXPECTATIONS REGARDING TIIE BAPTIST.
CHAPTER II.
PROPHECIES AND EXPECTATIONS REGARDING THE BAPTIST.
As the last great prophet of the old covenant exhibits to us
many other peculiarities in the circumstances of his appearance
which differ widely from those of the other prophets, so also is
he the only one among them all who was announced to the
people by a special pre-nunciatory prophecy, by which he was, as
it were, legitimated. Since the prophets'had been silent during
so long a period, the expectation of such an one as John and the
remembrance of what was to be his peculiar character, had, it
may easily be imagined, almost entirely disappeared from
among the nation. The olden time had passed away, and the
new was not qualified to estimate at their full value the honors
and rights of the prophets; and on this account it was quite
necessary that a special divine declaration should indicate the
appearance of the last of the prophets, who was to be separated
by so great a lapse of time from his predecessors, and should
keep alive among the people an expectation of his coming.
Independently of this, the fulfillment of the prophecy respecting
the Baptist was intended to be, on account of the close connection of this event of national interest with the coming of the
Messiah, a sign and a proof (Heb. nir) of the approaching fulfillment of those other important Messianic promises; in order
that, by means of this notable occurrence, the unbelieving
might be convinced of the truth of God's word, and that believers, having their attention drawn to the significance of the
times, might prepare themselves to receive the Lord in a be



PROPHECIES AND EXPECTATIONS REGARDING THE BAPTIST. 23
coming manner. On this account, it would seem, then, must
Malachi, with whom the brilliant series of the prophets was
brought to a close, have made mention, at the end of his
prophecy (4: 5, 6.), of the forerunner who was to prepare the
way of the Lord.
It may, indeed, be doubted, at first thought, whether that
prophecy really refers. to John; for the forerunner there mentioned is to precede the great and terrible day of the Lord, and
to arouse the people to repentance (of which repentance, it
may be remarked, only a single individualizing lineament is
there drawn, namely, the re-establishment of unity in families,
which, naturally, cannot exist apart from other happy influences, but is mentioned in that connection as one only among
the blessings which were to flow from the universal re-establishment of love and friendship, and, therefore, of an entirely
new spirit among men), in order that the Lord might not be
compelled, on his coming, to destroy the whole land as one
accursed and obnoxious to condemnation. Now the first ap.
pearance of Christ was by no means a coming to judgment,
and, in particular, it was not a grand and fear-inspiring advent.
The reference in this passage of Malachi appears, therefore, to
pertain rather to the second, yet future, advent of the Messiah,
and to the precursor then to be expected. It is to be noted,
however, on the one hand, that there is no precise distinction
to be recognized in any part of the Old Testament between
these two appearances of Christ. Events which to the spiritual
eye appear perspectively near to the view, are conceived and
represented as actually connected; and hence we find the Messiah described in the prophets, now as a powerful and fear-inspiring king, now as a lowly and despised servant of God; and
his appearance spoken of, now as a day of terror and revolu




24 PROPHECIES AND EXPECTATIONS REGARDING THE BAPTIST.
tion, now as drawing near amid a calm and cheerful peace,
What can only be spiritually understood of his first coming,
and is literally perceptible externally in his second, is conceived
of as unfolding itself in a single and undivided appearance. It
must be observed, on the other hand, that there actually exists
so intimate a connection between the first and the second advent of Christ, with respect to the judgment, that the two
might have been very suitably united and treated as one by
Malachi -Whoever does not believe upon the coming Saviour,
is already condemned by him, and receives his punishment
without delay; he who hails him with joy, is justified, and his
reward tarries not.  The judgment begins with the first
appearance of Christ, though itiay be not at all visible to the
bodily eye; and, so far, this first appearance may with justice
be called the great and terrible day of the Lord. One must here,
as everywhere in the prophets, understand well how to separate
the moral drapery and ornament in which they are clothed,
from the spiritual contents of the prophetic representations.
Even after this difficulty in the prophecy of Malachi has been
removed, there yet remains another; for the promised forerunner is called Elijah (without doubt, because he, like the great
Tishbite Elijah, should arouse a race which had become perverted and had fallen away from God, to repentance, and should
work in the spirit and with the power of Elijah, Luke 1: 17.);
and yet John denies expressly that he is the promised Elias
(Jno. 1: 21.). This passage would in truth be very difficult to
understand, did we not possess in other parts of the New Testament a complete explanation, according to which John is really
intended in this prophecy of Malachi's; from which circumstance we are obliged to conclude that John answered his interrogators in the negative in an altogether peculiar sense.




PROPHECIES AND EXPECTATIONS REGARDING THE BAPTIST. 25
In the very announcement of the birth of the Baptist by
the angel (Luke 1: 1T.), we find a most pointed reference to
the passage in Malachi, and one which throws light upon the
question now. under consideration. He is here spoken of as
one who shall go before the Lord "in the spirit and power
of Elias;" from which we are allowed, if we feel so inclined,
to draw the conclusion that Malachi in his prophecy means
that a man like Elias, and not Elias in person, should be the
precursor of the Messiah. According to this entirely legitimate explanation, the forerunner is called Elias in this passage
of. Malachi just as in other prophecies the Messiah is called
David, in which there is evidently no thought of the personal
re-appearance of that monarch (Jer. 30: 9., Ezek. 34: 23.,
Hos. 3: 5.). In this sense may Christ's declaration that
John was the expected Elias (Matt. 11: 14., 17: 12.) be
understood;* though, it may be, as we shall see further on,
that it is to be taken in a somewhat different and higher acceptation. Furthermore, Mark introduces the passage as a
proof that John's appearance was made in accordance with the
intention of God (1: 2.); he cites it, indeed, as if it stood in
Isaiah, but this inexactness arose probably from the fact
that the passage of a similar bearing which follows in Mark,
was borrowed from Isaiah, and the evangelist wished to make
use of the former, whether conscious at the time or not of its
different connection, as an introduction to and commentary
upon the latter. Be this as it may, no difference results in
the main point under consideration.
Finally, we have the positive explanation of Christ himself
(Matt. 11: 10.), that John is the one to whom the passage
* Such is the view of Tholuck, Corn. on John, Kaufman's Eng. trans. 2d
N. Y. ed. p. 79.  $




26 PROPHECIES AND EXPECTATIONS REGARDING THE BAPTIST.
refers; and, in Maatt. 1: 10. if., and Mark 9: 11. ff., he
speaks in such a way of the promised Elias, that, as Matthew
says, his disciples understood him to designate John as that
individual. After the brilliant transfiguration which took
place upon the mount, the glorification of Jesus, his disciples,who, relying on the passage in Malachi, supposed that now,
since Elias had again appeared, the glory of the Lord of which
Malachi speaks, must openly reveal itself,-asked him, in substance, the following question: "How stands the case now
with that prophetic declaration which the scribes have ever in
their mouths, that the proof that Jesus cannot be the true
Messiah is the fact that Elias must first precede the royal advent?" They expected that Jesus would answer them: " Yes,
now have you seen Elias, and now too will be revealed the fullness of the glory of the Son of God."  Our Lord, however,
whose object it was to show them more and more the necessity
of his sufferings and death, of which he had already spoken,
replied to. the following effect: "It is true that Elias shall
comie first and bring all into readiness for the reign of Christ,
but how can you reconcile with this view yet other expressions
of Scripture which declare that Christ must suffer and be
treated with contumely? If these expressions are consonant
with the truth, as cannot be denied, and if Christ must undergo
many sufferings, another Elias different from him whom you
expect as the precursor of his royalty, must appear, or rather,
Elias must appear in different form from what you anticipate;
and, in fact, he has already actually appeared, and has suffered
and died as the type of-his master."  In giving this representation, Jesus evidently had reference to the imprisonment and
death of John the Baptist. 
On examining the words of Christ, it Cannot escape our no



PROPHECIES AND EXPECTATIONS REGARDING THE BAPTIST. 27
tice-that he does not expressly assert that John is the Elias
promised in Malachi; but, on the contrary, he appears to admit some difference between the two, notwithstanding their
general resemblance. This difference he expresses yet more
distinctly in another passage (Matt. 11: 14.), where he
declares indeed that John is Elias, but adds the limitation, " if
ye will receive it."  The identity of the two persons, therefore,
is not here unconditionally asserted, but only in a certain
aspect of the case; so that we are not constrained to believe
that they were one and the same, but may admit it or not, as
may seem to us more probable. The question now presents
itself, how are we to explain the circumstance that, though
the passage in Malachi has an evident reference to John, as
Christ himself acknowledged, he does not, nevertheless, declare
in express terms that John was Elias, and the additional circumstance that John, for his part, altogether denies the reference.
We must here revert to what has been already remarked
respecting the character of prophecy in general, and of this
prophecy in particular. Malachi did not distinguish between
the two appearances of Christ; but conceiving of the two as
one, he has represented it as being preceded by the forerunner.
The question then arises, whether, if the two advents be
united, the prophecy alludes only to a precursor of the first, or
also to one of the second appearance. We have, in fact, no
ground to deny the latter supposition; nay, since the first
coming of Christ is in a certain sense only a type of his second
and yet future coming, we have rather reason to expect that a
forerunner will in like manner usher in the future advent, under
circumstances more remarkable, it is probable, than those amid
which the first precursor appeared. In accordance with this
view, John the Baptist constituted only a partial and typical




2S PROPHECIES AND EXPECTATIONS REGARDING THE BAPTIST.
fulfillment of this prophecy regarding Elias; but it must be left
undecided whether this Elias shall be really the Tishbite raised
again to life, or only a prophet like him. If this hypothesis be
received as the truth, we can easily explain why Christ referred
to John as Elias only in a limited sense,-because, in fact, a
yet more perfect Elias was to be expected; and why John
himself replied so pointedly in the negative when he was asked
whether he was Elias,-because he knew full well that this 
prophecy was fulfilled in him, though really, only partially,
and that he was by no means the true Elias; though we are
not to conclude from this, what cannot be true, that John
thought of Christ's second coming. The Baptist, however,
gave no additional explanation of the sense in which he
responded to the question in the negative; because it would
have been, on the one hand, something altogether foreign
from his earnest straight-forward prophetic character, to which
a brief yes and no were appropriate, to enter upon expositions
of this kind; and because, on the other hand, such was the
object which they sought who put the interrogatory, that he
deemed them unworthy of any further explanation.
The Pharisees evidently intended to assure themselves, as
soon as possible, of the forerunner of a Messiah accommodated
to their fleshly way of thinking, to draw him over to their side,
that he might secretly play into their hands; and hoped by
means of this examination to win him over to their interest.
In order to prevent them from instituting such a formal examination of his claims as a prophet, John must have abruptly
responded in the negative. But he had also an altogether
special reason for giving them a distinct denial; and this was
the fact that an expectation was probably entertained by the
people, as seems to be proved also by the questions put to




PROPHECIES AND EXPECTATIONS REGARDING THE BAPTIST. 29
Christ by his disciples,-an expectation based on the passage
in Malachi, which they understood in its most literal sense,that the Tishbite would actually appear in person as one who
had arisen from the dead (cp. Sirach 48: 5. ff.). If the question were put to him in this sense, he must likewise have
responded, as he did, in the negative. Those who had been
impelled to him from a feeling of their internal necessities, did
not on their part suffer themselves to be dispirited by this
denial, since the positive explanation of his calling, by the Baptist, in accordance with another passage of the Old Testament,
which we have yet to examine more closely, knit them more
firmly into his companionship. In any event, the following
truths are firmly established by our examination of the passage
in Malachi: It really refers to John, and is fulfilled, though
not completely, in him; and the forerunner must be conceived
of as preceding the first advent of Christ, not only because the
mention of his coming in the prophecy is general, but because, in
particular, the passage is unquestionably referred to John in
the New Testament, and the name Elias is conferred upon him,
with, however, as has been seen, a not insignificant limitation.
We have, accordingly, in these verses of Malachi, a direct
prophecy, if not of the person of John, at least of his office
as the precursor of Christ; and in the comparison between
him and the Tishbite Elijah we have an indication of his
personal character and of the relation in which he stood to
his time.
We have, moreover, a positive explanation of John's respecting himself and his calling (Jno. 1: 23.), which, in like
manner, refers us back to a prophetic passage in the old Testament. The same passage, Isa. 40: 3-5, is employed by the
three evangelists, in th3 beginning of their respective narra



30 PROPHECIES AND EXPECTATIONS REGARDING THE BAPTIST.
tives (Matt. 3: 3., Luke 3: 4-6., Mark 1: 3.), as a proof
not only of the propriety, but also of the necessity, of the
Baptist's appearance. In the place in question the subject is
the deliverance of Israel from great trouble: Jehovah announces to his people an end of sufferings, and sends a messenger before him in order to prepare a way for him who was
soon to appear as a deliverer, and to make ready for his advent. Without doubt, the prophet, in this passage, speaks of
himself as this ambassador and messenger, who is, in this and
the following discourses, to proclaim and prepare a way for
the coming of the Lord. Neither the Baptist nor the evangelists mean to assert that the forerunner there alluded to is
actually identical with John; though Matthew seems to declare it when he says: "this is he that was spoken of by the
prophet Esaias," etc.; while Mark ("as it is written in the
prophets,") and Luke ("as it is written in the book of the
words of Esaias,") would evidently only indicate by the citation the necessity of the advent of John. Matthew, however,
only intends to say that this John.is the complete realization
of that forerunner spoken of in Isaiah, which latter can only
be regarded as the type of the former, just as the advent of
the Lord in Israel, there described, is only an image of his
advent in the flesh. So conceived as a type, this passage is
peculiarly applicable in the connection in which it stands in
the evangelists. As the coming of the Lord spoken of in the
prophet, was now realized in its highest sense, so must the
coming of the forerunner be also realized in its relative highest sense; and, therefore, John could with entire correctness
declare that in him was fulfilled the prophecy contained in the
passage under consideration. The passage, therefore, must be
classed among those to which a double application may be




PROPHECIES AND EXPECTATIONS REGARDING THE BAPTIST. 31
assigned, primarily to events near at hand, but secondarily to
others yet,'at the time of the prophecy, far removed in the
latter, -the former being, so to speak, typical of the former.
So must the citation be explained, unless we have recourse to
the not very satisfactory expedient of "accommodation," and
paraphrase with the "later Commentators" alluded to by
Bloomfield (on Jno. 1: 23.), "What the prophet (namely,
Isa. 40: 3.) there says, holds good'of me; you will find there,
what will be a sufficient description of my person and office."
The original historical reference is evidently such as has been
stated.*  Alford, however, remarks: "The primary and literal application of this prophecy to the return from captivity is
very doubtful., If it ever had such an application, we may
safely say that its predictions were so imperfectly and sparingly
fulfilled in that return, or anything which followed it, that we
are necessarily directed onward to its greater fulfillment,-the
announcenent of the kingdom of Christ."
How it happened that all three evangelists made use of this
citation, is easily explicable when we consider this evident connection between that prophecy and the appearance of the
Baptist. It had, no doubt, become customary in the regular'
and almost stereotyped narratives of the life and acts of Christ
while upon earth, which were circulated in the churches, to
introduce the history of the ministry of John with this citation; and hence we find it in the same connection in all three
evangelists. The evangelists, however, have only the third
* According to the evangelists, who follow the Septuagint, the words " in
the wilderness" (ev r- Iq)/zo) belong to the participle "crying" (poSvro7);
but in the original Hebrew they are connected with "prepare ye" (rot/uzaaTre,
instead of which we have in John evOivare, "make straight"); thus, "the
voice of one crying,'Prepare ye in the wilderness, etc.'"




32 PROPHECIES AND EXPECTATIONS REGARDING THE BAPTIST.
verse from Isaiah in common, while John also refers only this
one to himself; and it is clear that this indicates most strikingly and most concisely the relation of the Baptist to Christ.
Luke alone adds the fourth and the fifth verse (the last
only in part), which contain a further description of the office
of the forerunner, and a promise of the approaching glory of
God; and which are quite applicable to John's case, though
not so much so as verse third. Luke, also, with spiritual
freedom changes the citation, in order to make it suitable to
the object for which he introduces it. He leaves out, for example, the words, "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed;" without doubt, because Christ had as yet appeared
only in humility, and not in glory. On the other hand, the
following, " all flesh shall see the salvation of God," was with
him the chief reason of introducing the citation; for the condition of beholding this salvation is that a road be broken up
into the heart, in order to render easy and finally to allow, the
entrance of the Lord into the soul. To open up just such a
road had John the Baptist come as the forerunner of Christ.
Upon this passage in Isaiah,-which, on account of its being
typical, could have been, and was, recognized as prophetical
only by its fulfillment,-the Jews appear not to have grounded
any expectation of a forerunner; but only upon the altogether
direct prophecy of Malachi. For this reason, those among the
nation whose hearts were hardened to every holy impression,
understood not what John meant when he referred to the
passage, and were unequal to the task of finding out the drift
of his words; while, on the contrary, those whose souls were
susceptible, obtained, by means of the same explanation, a
clear insight into the peculiar character and vocation of the
Baptist.




PROPHECIES AND EXPECTATIONS REGARDING THE BAPTIST. 33
Finally, we have yet to examine another expectation which,
as it appears, many among the Jews entertained at the coming
of John; and which they exhibited when they asked of him
whether he was " the prophet" (o6 Troo rwj, Jno. 1: 21.).*  It
will, perhaps, be difficult to ascertain at the present time, precisely who it was they supposed "the prophet" to be. The
conjectures which are founded upon 2 Maccabees 15: 13, 14;
2: 1. if. are evidently wholly unsatisfactory. The supposition
that Jeremiah is there called simply "the prophet" and that
from this circumstance he was afterwards so distinguished by
the nation, is incapable of being proved; and, moreover, that
Matthew appears to have had a conception of Jeremiah's returning alive among the people (16: 14.), cannot be adduced
in favor of the hypothesis, for such a return, according to the
ideas of those whom Matthew introduces as the speakers, is
possible also to the other prophets; and, to conclude the
whole, it can be proved' in no case that Jeremiah was ever
actually spoken of among the people as simply "the prophet."
We must, perhaps, go back in preference to the promise of
Moses (Deut. 18: 15.): "The Lord thy God will raise up to
thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like
unto me." This promise, it is true, was referred by the Jews
at a very early period to the Messiah (cp. Jno. 6: 14., Acts
3: 22., 7: 37.), but interpreters were never entirely certain
that a prophet different from the Messiah is not here meant
(cp. Jno. 7: 40.); at least, it seems to have been thought
* To render o qr00oy7rc as does the received version, by " that prophet" is erroneous, and is liable to lead the unpractised reader to suppose that we have hero
a repetition; for, as the words stand, "Art thou that prophet," the expression
can only mean " Art thou Elias," which is an insignificant tautology. We
should translate "Art thou the (expected) prophet?"




34 PROPHECIES AND EXPECTATIONS REGARDING THE BAPTIST.
worth while by those who interrogated John, when he answered their query respecting his being the Messiah in the
negative, to inquire of him, in a second question, whether
another prophet than the Messiah is. announced by Moses, and
whether he was that particular prophet. Here also were they
foiled in their object by John; and since they, under the influence of their perverted fleshly expectations regarding the
Messiah, and, in a similar manner, regarding his precursor,
knew not what to think of his reply, they requested him to
give a positive explanation of his meaning. The explanation
which they desired was given by the Baptist in words which,
to their dull understandings, were as unintelligible as his
former replies.
The conceptions, therefore, which John had respecting himself, his calling, and the position which had been assigned him
by the express declaration of the Old Testament, were clear
and decided, as we shall show hereafter when an appropriate
opportunity presents itself; whilst, on the other hand, the
ideas of the Jews respecting him vacillated in uncertainty,
now to this side and now to that, according as their Messianic
expectations and their insight into the Old Testament were
more or less perverted.




BIRTH OF THE BAPTIST.              35
PART      SECOND.
JOHN BEFORE HIS PUBLIC APPEARANCE.
CHAPTER     I.
BIRTH OF THE BAPTIST.
WE find intelligence of the history of John's birth in Luke
alone (1: 5. ff.); but in him it is so much the more complete,
probably because, for some reason or other, information which
had not been circulated beyond the members of the Baptist's
family, was fully accessible only to that evangelist. We are
obliged, on this account, to follow Luke's authority solely;
for the apocryphal history which we have in the so-called
Protevangelium Jacobi, is notoriously so much corrupted by
the intermixture of fables, that it is entitled to none of our
confidence.
Luke gives the time of John's birth with a great want of
precision: "in the days of Herod, the king of Judea" (1: 5.).
Herod the Great is evidently here meant, who, according to
the best calculation, exercised his dominion over Judea, as he
had obtained it, by means of cunning and cruelty, from the
year 40 to 4 B. C. of our era. From this general representation we can arrive at no certain concl(:sion with regard to the
time of the birth of John. The mos; we can do is to refer
back to the period of the birth of Christ, which, it is admitted,
occurred in the last year of Herod's reign; to which, there



36                 BIRTH OF THE BAPTIST.
fore, the birth of John, who was six months older than Christ
(1: 26. 36., coll. 56, 57.), must also be aswigned.  His parents were of the priestly caste.  His father Zacharias performed his functions in the temple at the time of the birth of
his son: he could have been, therefore, according to the Jewish law, not yet over fifty years old;* and, as himself as well
as his wife Elisabeth did not expect to have any children,
their union must have borne upon it the curse of childlessness.,It may readily be supposed that both parents, who are represented to us as pious worshippers of Jehovah, were in the habit
of praying earnestly to their God to remove from them this
disgrace; and that Zacharias, when he, while presenting the
daily incense-offering, prayed in the temple for the welfare of
the people, offered up also in this holy place his own individual
petition to the Most High (cp. v. 13.).
Accordingly, it happened, as -ve are informed, on a certain
occasion, that, when it had again become his duty, in the
course of office, to present the incense-offering to the Lord in
the sanctuary, and when, perhaps, he repeated his customary
prayer with redoubled earnestness, an angel appeared to him,
and stood in full view before his eyes.  Zacharias, not expecting- such an apparition, was seized with fear and terror; just
as the pious worthies of the old covenant, conscious of their
own demerit and impotence, were wont, on the appearance of
an angel, to utter on the instant an expression of terror and
alarm. The angel, thereupon, addressed him, as was customary
in such cases, with the words, "fear not."  When his fears
i The Levites, it is true, became superannuated at the age of fifty (Num.
4: 3., 8: 24.); but it is not certain that this was the case with priests. Extracts from rabbinic writings quoted by Lightfoot (Hor. Heb.) would seem to
indicate the contrary (cp. v. 18.).




BIRTH OF THE BAPTIST.                  37
were allayed, the angel announced the joyful tidings that his
prayer had been heard, and that his wife Elisabeth should
bear him  a son.   At the same time a name was bestowed
upon the boy, indicative of the nature of his future dignity:
Johnz, that is, God-sent, given by God, created in an altogether
peculiar manner by the gracious interposition of God, and
therefore bound to him by altogether peculiar ties.*
With the announcement of the name is connected the prophecy of the angel respecting the duties of the son and the
significance of his advent.  The mention of his name and the
pre-announcement of his birth were of themselves sufficient to
produce the joy which his parents must have felt in the approaching birth of a son long-desired but no longer expected,
and which many others must likewise have experienced on the
appearance of a man who was to be so distinguished. Another
reason is adduced for the pleasure which was felt in the expected birth of John: it constituted the condition of his
ministry at a later period, as all must have perceived to whom
the complete development of the kingdom of God was thought
a matter of consequence, and who longed for the salvation of
Which John was to be the proclaimer; and it was grounded
* The name John comes from the Hebrew 13pur (Jehochanan), the contracted form of which is 7m~(Jochanan), meaning, as usually explained, Whom
Jehovah has given; but better, God is gracious. This is represented in the New
Testament by'Ioivvry, with which, as to meaning, the Greek OeOwedogo (Theodories) is nearly identical.-The name of John's father, Zacharias, is the Hebrew,-ihe   (Zekharyah, Zechariah in the E. V. of the Old Testament), a'd
mear.s wYhom Jehovah remembers. —His motther's name, Elisabeth, is the Hebrew'::^;>, (Elisheba'), ihose oath is God. Aaron's wife was so called (Ex.
6: 23.).-The appellations given to children among the Orientals are always
signlificant; and those in the Old Testament usually bear their meaning on
their face.




38                BIRTH OF THE BAPTIST.
in his personal disposition, in -his relation to the Israelitish
nation, and, finally, in his relation to the coming Messiah, all
which three facts stand together in a necessary connection.
He was to be "great in the sight of the Lord," in contradistinction from earthly greatness in the sight of men; spiritually
great in his office as the preparer of the advent of the kingdom
of God. He was to possess externally the highest legal perfection in his character of Nazarite (Num. 6: 3., Judges 13:
14.), those bearing which name bound themselves by a vow to
practise, for a short time or for their whole life, as the case
might be, certain external' ceremonies and observances. Such
a person must he be, because he was to exhibit once more the
highest moral perfection of the old covenant, and, at the same
time, the unsatisfactory nature of that covenant as a means of
attaining true salvation; and, therefore, was he at his appearance to introduce to him who' could free from the curse
of sin and from the constraint-of the law.
The most remarkable part of the angel's announcement, is
that John "should be filled with the Holy Ghost even from
his mother's womb" (i. e. while he was yet within the womb,
and henceforth). That the Holy Ghost here spoken of is not
the Holy Spirit specially so called in the Christian Church,
which was first poured forth after the completion of the work
of redemption (Jno.: 39.), needs no proof. What is here
meant is the divine Spirit in general, which operates in man
before his redemption and leads him towards his salvation, the
inovements and workings of which every man can trace in him
self, nay, which even cooperates in the development of unconscious children; for it is certain that a man may be filled with
the Spirit of God and yet be himself totally unconscious of the
fact, while the Spirit is carrying on his development. The re



BIRTH OF THE BAPTIST.               39
ception of the Spirit, however, independently and with our
free consent, in the operation of the second birth, can obviously not occur except with our own full consciousness; and
the passivity of the receiving soul must first have been freed
from its imperfections and made complete by the activity of the
Spirit's reception and by the commingling of the two elements,
before we have truly become possessed of the Holy Spirit.
The resemblance between the narrative here given of the
birth and external character of the Baptist and that which we
find in the book of Judges (chap. 13.) respecting the Israelitish hero Samson (Heb. Shims/hon), is remarkably striking
in several important particulars. Samson's mother, like John's,
had been previously barren (vs. 2, 3.); an angel announced
unto her that she should bear a son (v. 3.); that son was
to begin the work of delivering his people (v. 5.); he was to
oe " a Nazarite unto God" from  his mother's womb; and,
finally, the Spirit of God wrought upon him and within him
(v. 25.). It is well to note with regard to this latter particular, that, though Samson is not said to have been filled
with the Spirit of God as it was promised John should be, the
operations of this Spirit upon him are represented as being of
a peculiar character. It is said that " the Spirit of the Lord
began to move him at times in the camp of Dan, etc."; where
we are to understand the words to move in the sense of to impel, to drive on (im:m, an expression occurring in the Old
Testament only here); the idea being that the Spirit began
to move him with irresistible power, in spite of himself as it
were,-a stronger expression, in one point of view, than that
used by the, angel when speaking of the Spirit's connection
with the Baptist (cp 1 Kings 18: 12., 2 K. 2: 16., Is. 8:
11., Ezek. 3: 14.).-The narratives of the birth of Isaac and




40                BIRTH OF THE BAPTIST.
of that of Samuel are in some respects parallels to this of
the birth of John (v. Ge. 18: 10. ff., 1 Sam. 1: 2., ff.), and
should be considered in connection.
After this description of John's personality follows that of
his employment among the people: " And many of the children
of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God."  His office
was limited to the preaching of repentance, and to pointing to
him that was about to appear: he himself could bestow no
new life, but could only prepare the way for its bestowment.
That the sphere of his action should be restricted to Israel is
grounded, perhaps, on the simple fact that Israel was, according to the counsel of God, the only people specially prepared
for his labors; and even Christ himself confined his ministry to
this nation, while whatever else was necessary to the establishment of his kingdom dn earth was left to be supplied by the
apostles. John was to turn men to God, that is, to turn
them away from their earthly and fleshly mode of life and conduct, and incline their minds again to God; and in accomplishing this, a knowledge of sin was first to be awakened, and
then an effort for self-improvement to be excited; but the actual power of self-improvement was first to be bestowed by
Christ.-John's office as precursor of the Messiah is represented
in a manner quite peculiar in the announcement of the angel.
He is to go before him, namely, before the Lord their God, who
is the subject of the remark, before God, who is now about to
appear personally in the flesh, and is to attack the depravity
of the times in the spirit and power of Elias, to preach repentance, to punish, to administer discipline, to unite again by
stronger links all the bonds of human society where the looseningo of family ties had torn them asunder, to turn the godless
-,o the leading of a more pious life, and to point the people to




BIRTH OF THE BAPTIST.             41
the Lord, that they may be made ready for his advent. In
this promise, that John should here and there abate the corruption of the times, by means of his preliminary invitations to
repentance, the angel refers, as has already been remarked,
to Malachi 3: 24; obviously only in order to render his
announcement more comprehensible, more agreeable, and more
credible to Zacharias, because he now proclaims to him the
fulfillment of that promise in his son.
This whole-occurrence bears, as has been noticed, a very
striking resemblance to the birth of Israel from the decrepit
Abraham and Sarah. The case was quite different with Mary,
since the birth of her child was not to be brought about by the
combined agency of the factors generally necessary in such an
occurrence; and hence her question, " how shall this be," is
altogether in order, though she entertained no doubt as to the
fact itself. Here, on the contrary, the natural relation of the
ordinary organic conditions, which rendered such a creation as
was promised to him in the highest degree improbable, were
impressed in so lively a manner upon the mind of Zacharias,
that he could not, for the moment, conceive of the truth of
the announcement, or imagine in what way it cotld be fulfilled; anld, therefore, he demanded a proof, a miracle, by
which the truth of the angel's assertion might be. established.
This requirement of a proof, this suggestion of the external
improbability of what was promised, shows how very much
Zacharias' Tas inferior to Abraham and Sarah in a trustful confidence in God: he stood in the same relative position as Sarah,
and besides this he recognized the angel as an undoubted messenger from God, while Sarah saw in him who spoke to her
only an ordinary traveller.
Notwithstanding this general recognition, on the part of




42                BIRTH OF THE BAPTIST.
Zacharias, of the angel as a divine messenger, the latter,-since
in this expression of doubt respecting the truth of his promise
there seemed to be likewise conveyed a doubt of his mission,once more proclaims himself an authenticated herald of God,
one sent from him to make the announcement which Zacharias
appeared to discredit. In order to legitimate his claims the
more completely, he calls himself by a name, designating thereby
the near relation in which he stands to God. That he here gives
himself a Hebrew name, is altogether in character, since he had
to speak in Hebrew to a Hebrew. He does not declare how
he is called among his equals and by God, for this a man
could not have comprehended; but he indicates to Zacharias, in a way intelligible to him, the characteristic of his individuality, expressed by means of a proper name,-a practice
which we find so frequently followed in giving names, especially among the nations of the East. He is called and is
Gabriel, i. e. a man of God; a name which is further explained by the addition, "that stand in the presence of God."
He is, therefore, one of the chief angels and messengers of God,
who receive their commands immediately from him (cp. Tob.
12: 15.). Whoever, then,-for such additional conclusion
may we draw from the words of the angel,-does not believe in
him as the chosen of God who is to make known his promise,
does not believe in God, and transgresses by his unbelief. The
proof which he requests, Zacharias shall indeed receive; but it
shall be a punitive proof. In order that he may be able for
the future to restrain his tongue from sinning, by means of expressions of unbelief, against God and his ambassador, he shall
"be dumb and not able to speak;"* and therefore, also, shall
* This expression of the received rendering is tautological; not so the
Greek, however, in which we have the word gCtowirv (siopon), silent, i. e.




BIRTH OF THE BAPTIST.               43
lie not be able to tell others of the promise made to him, and
profane it, perhaps, by the repetition of his doubts.'This punishment was intended to school Zacharias, that he
milght be increased and perfected in his spiritual graces.  A
knowledge of the unbelief which dwelt in his heart, the punishment which ensued as its consequence, the fulfillment of a
divine promise which appeared so improbable to him, all these
must have wrought powerfully upon his heart and purified it
from the dregs which it yet retained.  This object must have
been especially subserved by a condition such as his now was;
when, dumb and deprived of his ordinary social intercourse, he
was thrown back upon himself, and could enter upon a private
self-examination in serious earnestness, in order by upright
repentance and a change of disposition to prepare for the
dwelling of the divine in his heart. Yet, on account of this
anticipated change, the punishment was not to be of continued
duration.  Its termination is fixed; "until the day that these
things shall be performed," that is, until, by the birth of his
son, the fulfillment of the promises made to him shall begin.
They shall be fulfilled, however, adds the angel yet again with
firm and unhesitating confidence, each in its own time, neither
too early, nor yet too late; his birth, as also his ministry,
shall be made known and exhibited, each in its own appropriate llour.
There is no need of repeating here the observation that the
angel nmust, if he wished to be understood, have conformed, in
his outward appearance and language, to the ideas and conceptions of the man with whom he conversed.  All doubts of the
nrtt speaking (nmute). In v. 20., therefore, we should read, "thou shalt be
silent, and not able to speak"; the first member of the clause denoting the fact.
and the second the reason.




44                BIRTH OF TIE BAPTIST.
truth of our narrative based upon this conversation on the
angel's part after the manner of man, must, in consequence fall
to the ground. But, more generally, the fact that an angel is
represented as having appeared to Zacharias, has given rise to
suspicions of the truth of the whole narrative. It is not our
intention, as it would be quite foreign from our object, to enter here upon an examination of the question of the possibility
and probability of such angelic appearances; but we must at
least say thus much, that the. whole sacred history of the Old
as well as of the New Testament contains so numerous descriptions of similar apparitions, which can be rejected only by the
most marked exegetical arbitrariness, and that, still further, the
existence of angels and their employment in securing the salvation of manhave in their favor so much testimony from Christ
and the Apostles, that it would be difficult to establish the
contrary on grounds at all satisfactory. If no didactic value is.
assigned to all that the New Testament says respecting angels
and their office,-since it is in fact true that the whole of this
doctrine can have and will have no material influence upon
Christian faith and Christian doctrine,-we must at least admit
that the certainty of the existence of angels lies at the basis
of all these expressions respecting them and their office among
men. And, if the so much abused theory of accommodation
is sought to be applied to the present case, there cannot surely
be adduced as a powerful reason in favor of its application, the
assertion that Christ and his disciples mentioned angels as frequently as they did without attaching any other meaning to
what they said than we do when we speak of the apparition
of fairies and spirits. Nay, is it at all probable that a man
who was a lover of truth could.by any possibility have intentionalll expressed such ideas in his discourses, if he was con



BIRTH OF THE BAPTIST.              45
vinced of their untruthfulness? Or is it likely, on the other
hand, that Christ himself entertained ideas on the subject as
incorrect as those which he expressed are declared to h'e?
This, least of all, will be likely to be asserted, if one only observes how Christ by no means follows blindly the representations of others, but gives new and independent descriptions of
the angelic office, as, for example, in Matt. 16: 27, 18: 10,
25: 31, 26: 53.
That angels do not now appear, can be no proof that they
did not appear in those days; for we only read of their coming
either when man in his weakness needs such immediate instruction from God, or when great world-formative epochs arrive
in the development of the kingdom of God; and accordingly
at the time of the ministry of Christ upon earth, we see all the
powers of light and of darkness appearing in person, with all
their weapons, upon the field of combat, for here was to accrue
to each party either victory or destruction. And, after all,
what is there so improbable in the supposition that God, who
exerts his powers so variously, visibly and invisibly, in the
operations of nature which are immediately known to us, since
he makes use upon earth of so endlessly varied means and ways
of carrying out his intentions, should possess also in a higher
sphere instruments and organs who assist in accomplishing his
will upon earth, and whom he sends when and where it may in
his wisdom be necessary? With respect, then, to the appearance of the angel, and thus far generally in the account of the
evangelist, we can find no reason to doubt the historical truth
of the events there narrated; and we proceed accordingly to a
further examination of the simple subject. We will return to
a consideration of the dumbness of Zacharias at a later period
in the narrative.




46                BIRTH OF THE BAPTIST.
As the incense-offering was presented daily, the people who
were tarrying meanwhile in the court of the temple, knew very
nearly the precise time at which the priest would return from
the sanctuary; and it must, therefore, have seemed to them
the more remarkable that he remained on this occasion so
much longer than was usual. The conversation with the angel
could not have been of long duration, but Zacharias consumed
some time in recovering from the first shock of his alarm.
When, at length, he came forth, it was plainly perceived by
his confusion and his whole disturbed aspect that something
extraordinary must have happened to him  and when he now
remained speechless, instead of pronouncing the blessing which
the people expected, and gave them to understand that he
could not speak, and therefore was able to confer the benediction upon them only by signs,* they could come to no other
conclusion than that he must have had an ecstasy in the
temple, or must have seen some strange sight, or some apparition in the flesh; which conjecture, probably spoken out
aloud by the bystanders, Zacharias confirmed by nodding his
head and waving his hand, whilst he remained standing before
them without the power of speech.-What reception he met
with afterwards from the remaining priests and from his wife,
we are not informed in the narrative. Without doubt, they
looked upon him with special reverence as one honored by
God with some important revelation, and made no further inquiries of him respecting the object of his vision. It is likely
that even to his wife he communicated no more than the fact
* "It was not his office," says Alford, " to pronounce the benediction," as Von
Rohden has here represented, " but that of the other incensing priest; so that
his'not being able to speak,' must mean, in answer to the inquiries which hia
unusual appearance prompted."




BIRTH OF THE BAPTIST.              4'1
that God had announced to him the birth of a son and assigned him a name. He continued to remain in the temple
until the completion of the week in which he and his colleagues
had to perform the priestly functions, without, it would seem,
its having fallen to his lot to enter the sanctuary again. At
the expiration of the week, he returned to his place of residence and to his wife.
The pregnancy of Elisabeth actually occurred, as had been
announced; but not in such a way that we are compelled to
regard the event as a special divine miracle, though it retained
the character of a gift of divine favor. Elisabeth, who recognized it as such, concealed herself for the first five months,
withdrew herself from social intercourse with her friends into
loneliness, partly in order to become well assured of her pregnancy before she made -her appearance in public, partly in
order to be freed from every reproach,-which, however, did
not originate with her husband,-on account of her having
been so long unfruitful; praising God because he had taken
away from her the disgrace which attached among the Jews
to unfruitful women, because he had looked upon her with
favor at his appointed time, and had thought her worthy of
such a blessing.
At the period indicated, the promise was fulfilled in so far
that the child to which Elisabeth gave birth, was actually a
son. The whole town, as may readily be supposed, and the
relatives and neighbors of the parents took the liveliest interest
in this happy event. They saw indeed nothing particularly
wonderful in the birth of the boy, but only a new proof of the
greatness and mercy of God who had blessed Elisabhth with a
child in her old age.-According to the Jewish law, the eighth
day after the birth was the time appointed for the circumcision




48                BIRTH OF THE BAPTIST.
of children (Gen  17: 12.). It was customary on this occasion
for all the kindred and acquaintances of the parents to come
together, in order to pass the day in festivities, and to be witnesses of the circumcision and the naming of the child. As it
was usual for the child to receive its name front one of its
relatives, the friends wished in this case to call him after his
father Zacharias, in the confident expectation that the parents
would urge no objec.tion.-It is probable that previous to
the institution of the rite of circumcision, children received a
name immediately upon their birth.-Names were, as with us,
usually bestowed by the parents; but sometimes the relatives.
of the child had a voice in the matter, by the parents' consent
(cp. Ruth 4: 1.). There are several instances mentioned in
the Old Testament in which, as here, the child receives its
name expressly from the circumstances attending its birth, or
from something note-worthy in its own or the history o; its
family (cp. Gen. 16: 11., 19: 31., 25: 25, 26., Ex. 2: 10.,
18: 3, 4.).
Eli.sabeth, informed by her husband of the occurrence in the
temple, and knowing what, according to the will of God, her
son was to be called, opposed the intention of her kindred, and
bestowed upon him the name of John. Astonished at this
procedure, the relatives could discover no reason for conferring
upon the child a name so wholly unknown in the family. She
remained, however, firm in her opinion; and, in consequence,
the father, who had perhaps been present as a dumb guest
at this transaction, was referred to and requested to decide
the question. They communicated their meaning to him by
signs, because men are accustomed to act towards dumb persons as though they were deaf; for that he was really also
deaf it is not natural to conclude, else could he have known




BIRTH OF THE BAPTIST.               49
nothing of the whole controversy, and nothing, moreover, respecting that which they now required of him. Zacharias,
therefore, asked by signs for a tablet, the only way in which
he could in this case make himself understood, and wrote
thereon the words, "His name is John."* All, thereupon,
wondered much at this strange idea of both the parents.
At the same moment the punishment was removed which
Zacharias had brought upon himself by his unbelief. He now
saw and was convinced of the truth of the angelic message,
which hehad, no doubt, in all seriousness and full of repentance, long since believed in his heart. He had now completed
the probation assigned him by the angel; now, therefore, was
his mouth again opened and his tongue loosed; and the first
use which he made of his recovered speech, was, as was proper,
in singing a song of praise to the Lord. The presence of a
divine power was so clearly evinced in this whole event that
the assembled company and all the acquaintances of Zacharias,
in view of these revelations of divine energy, were inspired
with a holy fear and awe. In that entire region these occurrences were frequently related and much talked of; yet in
such a way that a knowledge of them did not spread beyond
that small mountain country in which Zacharias resided, and,
on this account, it appears not to have reached as far as Jerusalem. Men spoke much respecting the child, and pondered
in their hearts as to what were to be the future character and
* In the words "and wrote, saying, His name is John" (v. 63.), the word
saying is used, as we often employ it, of what is merely written and not spoken
(cp. 2 Kings 10: 6.). There is no likelihood of the words being misunderstood
as they stand in English; but Luther's " schrieb hund sprach" may be; and it
has therefore been condemned as of ambiguous import (so by v. Rohden, p.
34, note).




50                BIRTH OF THE BAPTIST.
fate of this priest's son whose birth had been attended by so
much that was wonderful. Meanwhile the child itself was
rapidly and vigorously developed under the protection and
training of the Lord.
This whole event is so simple, so accordant with nature, and
discovers so fully the hand of the Lord, that one wonders in
what respect it is liable to exception. He who will believe in
ancl acknowledge no miracle, although so much that is miraculous, and so much that is inexplicably enigmatic, is occurring
before his eyes; he who imagines that he can see with his
human eye through all the divine arrangement of the world,
and cannot be convinced that there are higher laws, by means
of which, at times and in particular at such great turningpoints of history, the order of things'as known to us is interrupted, and yet without its being in the least destroyed: he,
it must in general be admitted, would take exception to the
miraculous dumbness of Zacharias, and it would be difficult,
we grant, to convince such a one of the truth of the narrative.
That this miracle could be explained after the order of natural
causes, is certain; but it is equally certain that, according to
the view of the writer, not a natural occurrence, but an actual
miracle, is here intended to be narrated.-He, on the contrary,
who does not object to the credibility of miracles, will readily
perceive how exactly, as has been already noticed, this divine
treatment of Zacharias must have constituted the most suitable
means for his moral improvement; and he will acknowledge
the divine wisdom which is manifested in the narrative, rather
than deem it a fiction.
A fact very nearly analogous to this occurrence, we find in
the conversion of St. Paul, who was made blind for several
days in order that he might be led, during the lapse of this




BIRTH OF THE BAPTIST.              51
period, to an examination of himself;. and in this way was the
entire change which took place in his character produced.
What is fable and what is not, one may very readily discover
by reading, after the perusal of this simple and natural narrative, the history given in the so-called Protevangelion Jacobi
(Cap. 22. if.) of the deliverance of John and his mother from
the massacre of the children at Bethlehem; in which it is said
that a rock was divided and received within it the mother and
her child, and that within this they were concealed during the
time of the persecution. This would indeed be a monstrous
miracle; and such as would militate against the divine wisdom
and holiness. That a man should be preserved alive within a
rock would be something repugnant to the course of nature;
and by causing it to occur God would himself overthrow his
own laws. In general when a miracle is not necessary, it is
not permitted to take place; and it is clear that the deliverance of John and his mother might easily have been brought
about in a natural way, just as that of the child Jesus occurred in a manner altogether in accordance with the laws of
nature.




52              JOHN'S FAMILY RELATIONS.
CHAPTER II.
JOHN'S FAMILY RELATIONS.
IN order to obtain a clearer insight into the character of
John and his peculiar development, it is necessary to become
acquainted with the persons among whom he passed his childhood, and from whom he received his first impulses and impressions. It has already been mentioned that he was of
priestly descent, since his father and mother belonged, according to Luke 1: 5., to the tribe of the Levites. His
father, indeed, as we are further informed, belonged to the
-course of Abia, and, therefore, according to 1 Chron. 24: 10.,
to the eighth division of the twenty-four priestly classes who,
in accordance with Solomon's arrangement, performed, eight
days each in succession, the service of the temple. The character of the parents is given in general terms, briefly but distinctly: "they were both righteous before God," that is, in
the eyes, in the estimation of God, and not merely before men.
We are moreover informed in what this righteousness consisted: they walked "in. all the commandments and ordinances
of the Lord blameless," that is, they conducted themselves
strictly as the law of Moses had prescribed. Since, however,
this law is composed chiefly of requirements and interdictions
relating to external actions, the righteousness which is attained
by the fulfillment of these commandments can only be an external and legal righteousness, if there be not superadded
thereto a change of the heart produced by the operation of
the spirit of Christ. It is evident, then, that nothing else is




JOIIN'S FAMILY RELATIONS.            53
meant by these expressions but a Jewish, and not a Christian,
righteousness and blamelessness. They were called righteous
among the Jews who strove zealously for a fulfillment of the
law, in contradistinction from the godless, who sinned deliberately and of set purpose. Such righteous persons as strove
with all diligence to perform the requirements of the law, must
have come, by these means, so much the more certainly to a
knowledge that it is indeed possible to live up to the letter of
the law, but not to acquire the disposition of mind which such
conduct pre-supposes; and so must the parents of John, the
more righteous they became, the more scrupulous they were
in their fulfillment of the requirements of the law, have entertained so much the more eager longing after a deliverance, as
well from the domination of the sin which was intrenched in
their hearts, as from the yoke of the law itself, which, with all
its painful injunctions and interdictions, and with its mass of
inconvenient ceremonies, could have seemed to others only a
burden too intolerable to be borne.
But fow were those ideas and expectations obtained, which
they fostered respecting this deliverance; for, as we have seen
in the preliminary-sketch, expectations of a very various character had been formed among the Jewish people regarding
the Messiah. The best explanation of this phenomenon is afforded in the song of praise which Zacharias raised after the
use of his speech had been restored to him on the occasion of
his son's circumcision. In this example of the unbelief of
Zacharias,-we may remark in passing,-and of the punishment which it superinduced, we may perceive most clearly how
little are just and blameless performers of the law of Moses to
be regarded on that account as thoroughly holy men in their
dispositions; for in this case the issue of the trial did not




54              JOHN'S FAMILY RELXTIONS.
depend upon the performance of a commandment, but upon
the exhibition of a proper state of feeling, of a thorough and
perfect confidence in God, and upon the unshaken recognition
of the truth of God's promises and of his power to carry them
into execution. Accordingly, we see the righteous and blameless priest Zacharias wavering in his faith towards God, but
afterwards brought, by means of a severe discipline from God,
to repentance for his transgression and to a change of disposition. In his song of praise he speaks, it must be admitted,
in a state of elevated inspiration and with prophetic intuition;
but it remains none the less certain that what he said was not
merely something placed in his mouth by the Holy Spirit, so
that he was, so to speak, only a machine of utterance, but
that his words were an expression of his own inward consciousness and firm conviction,-which latter were urged onward,
in this moment, by the powerful external excitation to which
he was subjected, to such a degree of enthusiasm, that he regarded the deliverance as actually It hand, although only its
preparation was involved in the birth of his son. This inspiration, or enthusiasm, is here characterized as a filling with the
Holy Spirit, because it was a divine inspiration, excited by
God and busying itself with divine revelations, though many
of these revelations were not perfectly understood and were
explained in an earthly manner by Zacharias.
According to his representations, he by no means thinkq
that the redemption is to be one of a merely political kind, a
deliverance from the enemies of his people, but one also from
sins; yet political freedom forms in his conception an important part of the hoped-for deliverance. He appears not to be
well able to conceive of a perfect worship of God and freedom
from the punishment of transgression, unconnected with a pre



JOHN'S FAMILY RELATIONS.                  55
ceding deliverance of the nation from servitude; and hence he
represents both as being introduced by the Messiah. This is
his view of the subject-natter of the oath which God swore to
Abraham, and of the announcements of the prophets respecting
the office of the Messiah.  And yet it appears to be clear to
him,-a conclusion which he had come to, perhaps, from the
announcement of the angel,-that the son who had been born
to him is not to prepare a way for the Messiah in so far as he
is to introduce a political revolution, but only in so far as he
is to bring the people to a knowledge of salvation, a salvation'
which consists in the forgiveness of sins. The object of John's
ministry is "to give a knowledge of salvation"; he is to arouse
men to a feeling of its necessity.  Salvation itself, however, is
given by the Lord (v. 71.).   Forgiveness of sins appears here
as the great prerogative of the Messianic time; which, however, the economy of the Old Testament could not confer.
The sacrifices of the Old Testament could effect no internal
and actual remission, but only a purification of the flesh
(xaO(dx'jg T-q auxo'd, Heb. 9: 13.); sin.itself remained unpunished only on account of God's forbearance (Rom. 3: 25.).
Now, on the otherhand, real and effectual forgiveness is to be
sent, partly by the actual taking away of the consequences of
sin, partly by the impartation of the new higher life to men.** This part of Zacharias' song of praise is very often misinterpreted. The
English Version reads "to give knowledge of salvation unto his people, by the
remission of their sins"; and this rendering of Ev Joeiaec (lit. in remission),
which is based upon the incorrect translation per remissionem given by Beza,
is followed by Bloomfield (Greek Test.) when he says, "this [knowledge of
salvation] under the Law, was by legal righteousness; under the Gospel, by
remission of sins." Now, Ev ci6aet cannot here grammatically mean by the
remissioni; and, if it could, it ought not to be so rendered without absolute
necessity, since it is not true that "a knowledge of [i. e an acquaintance with]




56                  JOHN'S FAMILY RELATIONS.
Hence we perceive that a moral redemption by means of the
expected ministry of the Messiah, was the prominent idea of
Zacharias. In his opinion, however, asit seems, the knowledge
of the salvation which was now to ensue, is to be communicated to the people by John only in a general way, for he is
merely to announce to them         that the Messiah is about to
come.     The   essential nature, therefore, of the      repentance
which,John was to preach, although his attention had been
called to it by the angel (v. 17.), he does not appear to have
correctly conceived.
The bestowment of this salvation Zacharias refers to the
salvation" is given by means of the remission of sins, though it is true that salvation itself may be said to be so imparted.-There is another rendering of the
phrase given by Grotius and followed by Kuinoel (3d ed. of New Testament)
even more objectionable, viz.: "for the remission" (the in remissionem of the
Vulgate); but this unquestionably would require the Greek to read ei' Uieatov.
Besides, John could not confer forgiveness of iniquity; this could be done by
Christ alone.-Luther adheres more closely to the meaning of this particular
phrase, but his translation of the whole clause is erroneous. Following him the
verse is properly rendered, " und Erkenntniss des Heils gebest seinem Volk,
die da ist in Vergebung ihrer Siinden," i. e. and givest to his people knoowledge
of salvation, which [sc. knowledge, for die refers here to Erketnntniss] consists
in forgiveness of their sins. According to this the forgiveness of sins is produced by a knowledge of (i. e. an acquaintance with) salvation; but it is evident that it is the appropriation of salvation, and not the knowledge of it,
which effects such a remission.-There is only one rendering of the verse which
will fully answer the demands of the Greek and of the facts of the case, viz.
"to give unto his people a knowledge of the salvation which consists in forgiveness of their sins," or, more stiffly, "a knowledge of salvation, which salvation is
forgiveness, etc." The phrase iv ciaect connects in construction with GawrT7 ial
(of salvation), the article rTg (which we might expect to find before ev d0EcaEt,
thus, -r7; ev u(i., that consists in) being omitted as often elsewhere in such constructions in the New Testament (see Winer, N. T. Gram. ~ 19. 2.). So
render and so explain all the best modern New Testament critics, as De Wette,
Meyer, Olshausen, Kuinoel (4th ed. of New Testament.).




JOHN'S FAMILY RELATIONS.                     57
merciful love of God towards us (by which us, however, he
means the Jews, for his words are stamped by the prevailing
particularistic idea that salvation was to come only to that
nation), by means of which and in consequence of which the
uprising from   on high, i. e. the star ascending on high in the
heavens, the spiritual sun, has graciously appeared unto us,*
in order to shine and to scatter light upon those who wander
in darkness, and " to guide our feet into the way of (i. e. which
leads to) peace" (v. 78.).-From       these expressions of Zacharias we perceive quite clearly that he belonged to the number
of those pious souls among the Jewish nation who prepared
themselves in quietness for the great period of the development of God's kingdom, which had been promised them; who
searched the Scriptures and sough t to confirm and strengthen
thereby their Messianic expectations; and who held fast, with
* Thus Von Rohden, but not very clearly or correctly. His Autfgang aus der
HWle, uprising from on high (which is also Luther's rendering) does, it is
true, verbally represent the Greek words JvaTroi iE vAbovf, but it gives no fair
idea of the meaning of the passage..'AvaToA~t is evidently equivalent here to godb
dva7ri ov, its use being based, no doubt, upon those passages of the prophecies
in which the Messiah is spoken of as S Light (Ileb. ix, Greek B(Uf), as Is. 9:
2., 49: 6., 60: 1-3. cp. Jno. 8: 12.: it signifies, therefore, a rising light.
"Day-spring" i. e. day-dawn, the rendering of the received version, is, consequently, inadequate. It is better, moreover, to connect E vi9pov~ (from on
high) with the verb eTreaKiparo (hath visited; better, hath appeared unto), and
not, as is customary, with dvaro7a; and to translate the whole clause, " a rising
light hath visited [or hath appeared unto] us from on high."  Cp. Robinson,
N. T. Lexicon, sub verbo'Avaro2sj.-The word divaroXu, it should be remarked,
has been thought by not a few commentators to be an application of the term
as used in the Septuagint, as a translation of th, IIeb eivw cn;7z (tsesmach, i. e.
sprout, branch), the Messiah being so called in Jer. 23: 5., Zech. 3: 8.; but
b7rt6(vat (E. V. to give light to; better, to shine upon) in the next verse,
though not wholly conclusive, speaks strongly against such a construction,
which is now unsupported by the leading biblical critics.




58              JOHN'S FAMILY RELATIONS.
unwavering confidence in the truth of the divine promises, to
the hope that the expected deliverer would very soon appear;
in a word, that he pertained to the number of those who
"looked for redemption" (Luke 2: 38.). Of none of these
who so expected are we authorized to pre-suppose that they
had an altogether pure conception of the merely spiritual
dominion of the Messiah, and of his granting deliverance
merely from sin and its consequences, but not from external
bondage; for the long-conitinued and grievous oppression
which they had endured, the national pride excited by the
preference which they, the people of God, had enjoyed and
expected still to enjoy over others, and the numerous prophetic
announcements of the high dignity of the Messiah, were too
nearly associated in their minds with the idea of ascribing to
him, as they did, external power, and we find similar expectations cherished too long even by the disciples who received instruction from Christ in person, for us to expect that, before
the appearance of the Saviour, any Jew could have of himself
attained, by the study of the Scriptures, to the only true and
worthy doctrine of the Messianic kingdom. It is true, we
admit, that Simeon saw in advance the sufferings which the
Messiah had to undergo; but this did not, even in his case,
exclude the expectation of -an earthly glory and authority
which were to follow, just as we find in the Messianic prophecies these two aspects of the Saviour united. That in Zacharias especially expectations of the spiritual employment of the
Messiah were connected with others of his earthly power and
victorious dominion, is too evident to allow us to pre-suppose
that he had a thoroughly clear insight into the character of
the Christian theocracy.
Ideas similar to those of Zacharias were, no doubt, enter



JOHN'S FAMILY RELATIONS.             59
tained by his wife Elisabeth; of which, however, we do not
possess such express evidence in the Hoty Scriptures. She
also was pious, she also longed for the coming of the new and
great epoch; but she must also have found it equally difficult
with her husband to free herself wholly from earthly Messianic expectations. That she too hoped with her whole heart
in the near advent of Christ, and now especially, since the
promise had been made to her that she should give birth to
his forerunner, and that she acknowledged, even before he was
born, him that was about to come, as her Lord, though in
what precise sense it may not be easy to determine, we have
the proof in Luke 1: 39-45., where we find a narrative of the
visit of Mary'to Elisabeth, and, in particular, of the first
meeting of the two women. Mary had already received the
announcement that it was her destiny to become the mother
of the Messiah, and she had been referred to her kinswoman
Elisabeth as a proof and assurance of the possibility and of
the real fulfillment of the promise, since she who for a long
time had been supposed unfruitful, had now received through
the divine agency an assurance that she would soon become a
mother. As Mary commenced her journey to the residence
of Elisabeth as soon as she received this information from
the angel, Elisabeth could not possibly have had previous
intelligence of what had happened to Mary; yet, as soon
as she beheld her, she fell into a divine enthusiasm, and a
voice within informed her that this was the maiden chosen
by the Lord to give birth to the Saviour. Her violent excitement in feeling and her joy at this meeting and this divine
revelation, are partaken of by the child in her womb, as often
occurs in the last months of pregnancy. The child moves
within the womb, and this she takes for a new proof of the




60                JOI-'NS FAMILY.ELATIONS.
correctness of her judgment, ascribing to the child itself an
emotion of pleasure on account of the coming of its future master. Thus was the meeting a means to both the women of
confirming and strengthening their faith in God's promises;
for Elisabeth received an additional sure proof that he whose
precursor her son was to be would not fail to make his appearance; while Mary was made the more certain, by this anticipatory recognition on the part of Elisabeth, that a heavenly
favor, so super-abundant to a woman's heart as was that
promised, was to be conferred upon her; and, partaking of the
inspiration of her friend, she bursts forth in a song of praise to
the Most High.
As we find no further traces of other family connections ard
of other relatives of John, we must discuss so much the more
carefully the connection which had, without doubt, the most
important influence upon his development,-that with Mary,
and, therefore, with Jesus himself.  In Luke 1: 36, the angel,
when he refers Mary to Elisabeth, speaks of the latter as her
relatire.  The two were probably sister's daughters; for, since
Elisabeth was sprung from the tribe of Levi, according to Luke
1: 5., and Mary probably from the tribe of Judah, they could
not well have been related in any way except as the daughters
of sisters, of which sisters the one had married into the family
of Levi, whence sprung Elisabeth, and the other into the family
of Judah, whence the origin of Mary.*   Kinswomen so nearly
~ It is certainly making avyyevs' (a relative) too definite to translate it
" cousin" as in the received translation, if that term is to be taken in its restricted and now usual signification. The relationship between the two women
was probably that of cousinship, but this idea is not obtained from the meaning
of the Greek term which designates their connection. Mary may have been
the niece of Elisabeth, as some think; an opinion which the difference between




JOHN'S FAMILY RELATIONS.            61
related could not have remained long unacquainted with each
other; and the manner in which their meeting is narrated in
Luke appears to intimate that they had been previously known
to each other. They must have been still more closely united
together in the bonds of friendship by the encouraging promises
which they had each received; and it is natural to expect that
they often, at a later period, visited each other, in order to
communicate the observations they had made during the
growth and training of their sons and the hopes which had been
thereby produced, that their mutual confidence in the divine
announcement might be strengthened and confirmed.
It has appeared strange to certain critics that neither John
nor Jesus is mentioned by any, of the evangelists as alluding at
any time to their relationship; and some have supposed that
they preserved silence upon this point for fear of being charged
with working together upon a pre-concerted plan. Such a
hypothesis, however, is totally unnecessary. Indeed, it is more
likely that a declaration on their part of their relationship,
would, in most respects, have been an advantage to their
cause. Jesus, however, was averse from attempting to acquire
influence by any such merely mechanical process; he preferred
to further his designs by appealing to a better and a higher
kind of testimony (Jno. 5: 32. if.). Besides, it was his aim
to propagate his principles and to bring men to a knowledge
and confession of the truth not by means of external pomp and
splendor, but by a power whose working was internal and
spiritual.-But, after all, it cannot be positively decided whether
John and Jesus did, or did not, speak of themselves" publicly as
the ages of the two seems specially to favor. " Cousin,"- in its old sense, i. e.
blood-relation, correctly represents the original term.




62              JOHN'S FAMILY RELATIONS.
relatives. On this point the evangelists are silent; and to the
relationship itself Luke alone bears testimony. It may be, on
the one hand, that they made no mention of it; and did not,
because they took it for granted that it was known, and because
to have spoken of it would not in any way have assisted the
end which they had in view. Or, it may be, on the other hand,
that they did allude to it, but that the evangelists have not
recorded the fact; and that they have not done so, because
they supposed it to be already known to their readers that
such a recognition had been publicly made, or because they
concluded that allusion to it was not consistent with'their
object in writing.*
From the very probable pre-supposition respecting the intimacy of Mary and Elisabeth, above considered, it has been by
some further concluded that John and Jesus must have been
also acquainted at an early period; and with this certainty (we
should perhaps rather say probability), it is asserted, the
words of John, "and I knew him not" (Jno. 1: 31, 33.),
conflict in an inexplicable contradiction. But this contradiction is not, in truth, so inexplicable. It may be removed by
two distinct modes of explanation; in the one mode, by giving
to the words, "and I knew him not" a more limited application than to take it in the sense of " I was not acquainted
with him"; in the other, by contending for the possibility that
the two youths were entirely unacquainted with each other.
To decide, in accordance with the latter view, on the possibility
or impossibility of an acquaintance between the two, is rendered the more difficult by our limited knowledge of the history
* See upon this point a more full discussion by Leopold in his Johaznes der
Tiufer, p. 123-125.




JOHN'S FAMILY RELATIONS.                      63
of.their boyhood.    There is, nevertheless, one particular of
this history to which it will be well to give attention.
According to Luke 1: 26, and 2: 4., the proper residence
of Mary was Nazareth in Galilee; but Zacharias and his wife
dwelt in the "hill country" of Judea, i. e. in the eastern part
of the tribe of Judah, on the Dead Sea (1: 65.); and the city
in wlich they lived was probably called Judah, or, according
to another reading, Jutta or Juta, which is mentioned in Josh.
15: 55, and 21: 16., and must have been situated in the
neighborhood of Hebron (1: 39.).* The dwelling-places of
* In this verse we read ei wr6OZtv'Iov6a, into a city of Judah; nor can the
Greek, supposing'Iov6a to designate the geographical division Judah, have
any other meaning. It has, however, been a subject of much debate what city
is here meant. Some suppose that it is Jerusalem; but this cannot be true,
because a.) the article (rjv) would in that case have been used before rO62tv
(city); b.) the region around Jerusalem was not called "the hill country"
(v. 65.); c.) the birth-place of John was near the desert (v. 80.). Others
think that Hebron is referred to, a sacerdotal city, which is spoken of in Josh.
21: 11. as being in "the hill-country of Judah"; and the supposition may be
correct, as there is nothing in the text that militates against it. Another and
at present the prevailing opinion (originating with R. Valesius, 1613), is that'IoSda is itself the name of a city, it being either a softened form of, or an error
of the text for,'IoVTa, a Greek form corresponding to the Hebrew -rm.   (E.
V. Juttah), a sacerdotal city situated in the highlands a few miles south of
Hebron (Josh. 15: 55., 21: 16.). This city still exists as a village, under the
ntme Yuttah (Robinson, Bib. Researches, vol. II. pp. 190. 195. 628.). So think,
among other authorities, Kuinoel, Meyer, Reland (Palcst. p. 870), Bloomfield,
Robinson, Von Rohden (as above), and Leopold (JohaLnes der T. p. 24.).-It
is very questionable, however, whether mere conjecture (for this is only conjecture, all the codices having'Iov6a) is sufficient authority for changing a
reading: it certainly is not, unless the necessity is urgent, which it surely is
not in the present instance. De Wette, who is in a case like this no mean
authority, declares against the conjecture that'1ovea stands here for'Iora,
speaking of it as " an error so much the more improbable, since, on account
of the want of all traces of it in critical monuments, it must have been com



64                JOHN'S FAMILY RELATIONS.
the two families, therefore, were distant from  each other, by
the shortest route, at least from ten to twelve German, or
from  forty-five to fifty-four English, miles; and, consequently,
from the difficulties then existing in the way of travelling, the
mutual visits of the two women could not have been so very
frequent.  At the time of the birth of Jesus, indeed, Mary
was il Bethlehem, but she must have fled directly afterwards
to Egypt (Matt. 2: 14.); and, on returning from     that country, sle went back to Nazareth, and, therefore, continued
widely separated from Elisabeth. The best opportunity at
which they could see each other, occurred on the occasion of
the yearly festival-journey to Jerusalem, which every Israelite
was bound to perform; but it loes not appear to have been
the general custom for sons of less than twelve years to make
the pilgrimage to Jerusalem in company with their parents.
At this age we find Jesus visiting the temple, for the first time,
as it would seem (Luke 2: 41. ff.). This was the age at
which children were expressly bound to the observance of the
law, and attained, in a measure, the proper degree of maturity
for acquiring citizenship in Israel.  If now, as is in the highest
degree probable, the two families met, at a subsequent period,
on this festal occasion, it cannot, in all likelihood, have been
otherwise than that the mothers, who had so much to communicate with each other, brought about also a mutual acquaintance between theirtwo sons, who, the oftener they saw
mitted by Luke himself"; to which he adds, " it militates, moreover, against
the supposition, that Christian antiquity knows nothing of this birth-place"
(on Luke 1: 39.). The same critic says that the form of the Greek leaves it
undetermined what city is intended; and was probably meant to do so. Upon
the whole, this latter seems the preferable view. The rabbins suppose that
Iebron (as above) is referred to (Othon, Lex. Rabb. p. 324., Witsius, MisceUl
Sac. II. p. 380.).




JOHN'S FAMILY AELATIONS.           65
each other and the riper the age at which they met, must have
become the more intimate. How, then, could John say, "I
knew him not"?
In drawing such a conclusion as that just noticed, one pro-'ceeds upon a pre-supposition which needs first to be proved.
It is overlooked by him who takes such a view of the case, that
the parents of John are mentioned no more in the whole subsequent period, and that, in consequence, nothing prevents us
from supposing that they, at least the mother, died not long
after the birth of their son, or perhaps ten or twelve years
after, especially since, according to Luke 1: 7., they were,
even before the birth of John, " well stricken in years." If,
then, the'care and education of John were intrusted to strange
people, who perchance knew nothing of the family of Mary,
we may very well conjecture that the youthful Jesus continued,
if not entirely unknown, at most only very superficially known
to the Baptist; that, at least, the latter had heard nothing of
the great expectations which his parents cherished respecting
Jesus, for these indeed, they had not imparted indiscriminately
to every person among their acquaintance. And if we recollect, also, that John, according to the representations of the
evangelists, early withdrew, of his own accord, into solitude,
and shunned the companionship of men, he might, in truth,
have said with entire correctness, "I knew him not"; for, admitting that he had seen Jesus once, perhaps, as a boy or
youth, we cannot expect that he should still recollect him,
when he saw him again as a man in his thirtieth year.
On the grounds above-mentioned, therefore, it would 4be
difficult to prove beyond a question, that there must necessarily
have been, at an early period, an intimate acquaintance between John and Christ. Such an acquaintance, however, seems




66              JOHN'S FAMILY RELATIONS.
to be more strongly indicated by the words with which John
accosted Jesus on the occasion of his baptism. It is upon this
address in particular that the assertion of a contradiction between Matthew and the words of John, "I knew him not,"
-has been founded.
When Jesus comes to the Jordan unto John, in order to be
baptized by him, the Baptist attempts to restrain him with the
words, " I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou
to me?"  These words pre-suppose, in any case, a knowledge
of the perfect moral purity of Jesus, at least of a purity more
perfect than that which John was conscious he possessed; nay,
perhaps also a knowledge of the greatness of Jesus and of his
elevation above him, though this latter sense is by no means
the first suggested, and is not necessarily the first to be sought
for, in the expression. Such a knowledge, it would seem, John
could have obtained in no other manner than by a personal
acquaintance with Jesus. Whether the Baptist may or may
not have seen him for so long a time as has been found possible,
or whether he was only informed generally of his purity and
holiness by other people, it is clear that, in either case, he
knew Jesus at once, when he came into his presence. How,
now, are we to harmonize these words of John with his other
expression, "I knew him not"?
One might say that John, in consequence of his possessing
the prophetic spirit, had % presentiment, when he first glanced
at the unknown Jesus, of his dignity, and would, on that
account, have prevented him from being baptized, without,
however, having a full assurance that the new candidate was
the Messiah, of which fact he was first informed by the voice
from heaven. But of such an impression made upon John by
the appearance of Jesus, there is not the slightest indication




JOHN S FAMILY RELATIONS.            67
given in the narrative. Had it really been produced, we should
rather expect to be made acquainted with the fact, in some
such words as these: " And when John saw him, he prevented
him." On the contrary, however, the narrative as it stands,
leaves every where the impression of a previous ordinary acquaintance between John and Jesus; while, moreover, the
commencement of the recognition of Jesus by John is expressly
referred to the voice from heaven.
This last remark leads us to the right explanation of the
whole matter. We must look at that with which John became
acquainted respecting Jesus on the occasion of this administration of baptism, in order to understand what that was respecting him of which he had never before been informed. We
read that he, in his remarks regarding Jesus, recognized him
as the Son of God, as he who was s9on to baptize with the
Holy Spirit, as the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of
the world, as he who was higher than himself, because he
existed already before him, etc., but we do not find that he
recognizes him now as the son of Mary and Joseph, as one
who has proceeded out of Nazareth, as one who is called Jesns.
It was entirely immaterial whether he knew this of Christ, or
not, provided only he did not recognize him, until specially informed, as the Son of God. As such, was John to proclaim
him to Israel; in order to recognize him as such, he had
received a special divine revelation; but that he had not
hitherto recognized him in this character, is placed beyond
question by his own direct testimony, "I knew him not."
Whether, however, he knew him also as the son of the carpenter Joseph, as a pure and moral man, as his cousin, is, as far as
this expression is concerned, not at all determined. Those
persons in Galilee who despised Christ, because they knew his




68              JOHN'S FAMILY RELATIONS.
family, because they had seen him in his childhood, because
they knew that he was the son of unlearned people, did they
know Christ?  Yes, they were acquainted with his outward
appearance, but himself, his true being, they did not know.
We ourselves frequently make a similar distinction, when we
are asked whether we are acquainted with a man or not, by
answering, "Yes, superficially, or in a general way, but not
specially": and, in such a case, we would, under certain circumstances, hesitate not to reply, "I know him not"; for we
feel conscious that we do not really know a man at all, until
we have become acquainted with his proper character. Here,
in the case of Christ, must all the external and incidental relations which he bore have retreated into the back-ground when
brought into contact with the one truth of his existence, that
he was the Son of God, that he was the Messiah; and, therefore, might John have said of him, "I knew him not," with
entire correctness, so long as this, the true purpose of Christ's
being, was -kept concealed from his knowledge.
If, therefore, we are obliged to infer from Matt. 3: 14, that
John had occasionally seen his cousin at an earlier period, and
had known him as a man of moral and pure habits, we are,
on the other hand, compelled to conclude from Jno. 1: 31 and
33, that he had no correct idea at all of his dignity and his
high destination, and knew not that Jesus was the one whose
forerunner he had been called to become.-There is, it must
be confessed, a difficulty in the way, which appears to militate Against this view; it is, however, by no means unremovable. It seems hard to reconcile with this supposition the
probable fact that John's mother communicated to him, at
perhaps a very early period, the note-worthy promises which
were connected with the birth of his cousin Jesus, and which




JOHN S FAMILY RELATIONS.            69
stood in so close a connection with the divine- announcement
respecting his own birth; from which representations he
must have been accustomed, from the time they were made
to him, to look upon Jesus as the distinguished personage
whom he was to precede. Respecting the probability of
such a communication, however, we must remember that, at
least in the early years of the two children, nothing could
be said to them regarding these promises, because they could
not possibly have comprehended their import; because, too,
the parents must have feared that a divine prophecy whose
meaning was only partially understood by themselves, might
give to the minds of their children a totally false impression,
and must, therefore, have rather awaited their appropriate
development, looking for the exact time when they might
venture with safety to communicate to the children the promise which had been made respecting their future connection
and the nature of their employment. We must, in particular,
recollect that those wonderful events which were connected
with the birth of the children, were not made a subject of
boasting and vaunting conversation by the mothers, and that
they did not communicate them freely to other people;
on the contrary, as we so often read, " Mary kept all these
things,!nd pondered them in her heart," and therefore
we have every reason to conclude that they concealed and
kept quietly in their minds the rich treasure of the heavenly promises, in patient expectation of the time when
they should prove to be true and be fulfilled before their
eyes. They could not, therefore, have thought of making
their children acquainted with these promises before the
proper time for imparting the information had arrived.
When the time of the first public appearance of the two




70              JOHN'S FAMILY RELATIONS.
young men, now grown to manhood, was near at hand, then
perhaps this communication became necessary,' and even
then much depended upon other relations, to us unknown,
which might have happened at the time to be existing;
and, besides, who is able to affirm that at this period the
parents of John had not long been dead, so that he could
have learned from them nothing of the promises respecting Jesus; and in such an event, is it not probable, since
he withdrew, himself so early into solitude and separation
from other men, that Mary had found no opportunity of
informing him of the facts which related to his connection
with his cousin?
Various explanations of this declaration of the Baptist,
"I knew him   not," have been offered by interpreters of
the New Testament; no one of which, however, is free
from objections, while some are evidently inadmissible. That
above given is, all sides of the question considered, the
least objectionable; but it must be borne in mind, that in
solving this difficulty, as also many others in the New Testament, the chief obstruction lies in the fact that complete
historical accounts of many events and incidents alluded to
in the Scriptures, have not been given us, but only scanty
and not unfrequently disjointed fragments which itis often
no easy task to bring into harmony with each other.-One
class of interpreters adopting the most patent meaning of
ijE6,v (I knew), contend that John asserts here that he
knew not the person of Christ. This view is advocated by
Drr. J. R. Beard in Kitto's Cyclop. of Bib. Literature.*  But,
if John did not know the person of Jesus when he presented
* N. Y. edit. vol. 2. p. 129. Art. John the Baptist.




JOHN'S FAMILY RELATIONS.            71
himself for baptism, how was he made conscious of his superiority to himself? To this Dr. B. replies: "The relation
in which John and Jesus stood to each other must have been
well known to both. When, therefore, Jesus came to John,
he would naturally declare himself to be the intended Messiah. Such a declaration, —thus pointing out the person,would, of course, conciliate belief in John's mind, and might
naturally prompt the self-abasing language which he employs
when requested by Jesus to give him baptism." This reply is
altogether unsatisfactory; for a.) it is highly improbable
that John and Jesus should have known the relation in which
they stood to each other without having been already personally acquainted; and b.) there is not the slightest hint in the
narrative of Matthew (3: 13, 14.), that Jesus declared himself to be the expected Messiah; on the contrary, its whole
tenor gives us to understand that a personal acquaintance
between the two already existed. Thus much at least must
be admitted, or every attempt to solve the difficulty will be
unsuccessful.
Taking a ground quite the opposite of that just considered,
all the modern commentators of any eminence assume the
fact as unquestionable, that John and Jesus were personally
acquainted previous to the baptism of the latter; and some
of them even contend that John was also previously cognizant
of the Messianic dignity of Jesus. These differ not a little
among themselves in the explanations of the sense in which
the phrase in question (oix &Se-tv aIvY) is here employed
by the Baptist. That of Neander (Leben Jesm, 4 te Auf. S.
107.) seems the most objectionable of all. He says: "The
Baptist intends to assert by these words, in the most impressive manner possible, in consequence of the object he then




T7~2        ~ JOHN'S FAMILY RELATIONS.
had in view, that his confident conviction respecting Jesus as
the Messiah and the Son of God, is not of human but of divine origin. Though he'had already anticipated from what
he had heard reported respecting the birth of Jesus, that he
was the Messiah, the divine testimony which he had now received in his own person regarding Jesus was far more important in his eyes than all which he had previously heard of him
from other sources, and, in comparison with that which he
now beheld in the divine light, all that he knew at an earlier
period respecting Jesus appeared to him as only ignorance."
But the Baptist was too straightforward a man to make such
nice distinctions; and, if we are allowed to solve every difficulty in the New Testament interpretation by such an elastic
process as this, there will be no end to the spiritualizing of
Scripture, whenever its plain import is at variance with the
pre-conceived ideas or the objective feelings of the interpreter.
The explanation given by Tholuck* is nearly as unsatisfactory, and finds just as little support in the narrative: " Most
commentators remark here that John was indeed personally
acquainted with Jesus, but that he did not know him to be
the Messiah. But from Matt. iii. the latter supposition seems
to be incorrect.  It is better, therefore, to assume with Beza,
Lampe and others, that when the decisive moment of baptism
approached, the Baptist was filled with an [in substance correct]t apprehension of his character, which by the appearance
of the dove became a settled conviction."-This explanation,
however, comes into direct conflict with John's assertion that
he did not know Jesus previous to his baptism; for, how could
* Commentary on John, Eng. transl. by Kaufman, N. York, 2d edit. p. 86.
f There is something faulty here in the rendering of the German: we have




JOHNIS FAMILY RELATIONS.              3
he say so, if he entertained a proper idea of his character,
even though his conviction might have needed confirmation?
In some respects akin to this solution of the difficulty, but
not carried by any means so far, and therefore much preferable, is the explanation given by Leopold (Joh. d. T. p. 121123.): " By the words'I knew him not,' the Baptist did not
mean to say that he had known nothing at all of Jesus until
he presented himself for baptism, for we find sufficient records
to prove that John had, previously to that time, made his
personal acquaintance; but the expression odx Yet Cv avUi
is to be taken  in a higher sense.  The conversation of
John and Jesus (Matt. 3: 13-15.), on the application of the
latter for baptism, proves a previous acquaintance of the two.
Whence otherwise the brevity of the conference? Whence
the hesitation of the Baptist to baptize Jesus? The former
shows an acquaintance in general; the latter, a knowledge
of the Messianic dignity of the Saviour........ According
to the Gospel of John the expression is to be taken thus: the
Baptist does not mean to declare that he was unacquainted
with Jesus; but intends to say that he, although initiated
into the plan of the Messiah, had not hitherto recognized him
in his full greatness, and did not, until God honored him with
the disclosure."-This explanation, like that of Tholuck, infringes upon the meaning of,aLv; and is, in fact, a mere
evasion of the difficulty.
No solution of this apparent contradiction between the
evangelists John and Matthew, can be satisfactory which
does not proceed from the premises admitted even by the raendeavored to give by the words supplied in brackets what we suppose is the
idea meant to be conveyed by Tholuck; but we may be wrong, having no
German copy by us for reference.




14             TJOHN)S FAMILY RELATIONS.
tionalizing Winer,* "that ovx Sesv  aZcr6v, Joh. 1: 31., refers, as the whole connection, especially v. 33., teaches, to the
Messianic dignity of Jesus"; and which is not, therefore,
based upon the concession that John knew not Jesus to be
the Messiah until he obtained that knowledge by a divine
revelation, given by the descent of the Holy Spirit in a
symbol, after Jesus had received baptism at his hands.-The
fact that John refuses to baptize him at first, presents no real
difficulty; for we are by no means obliged to conclude that
he did so because he was conscious of Jesus' Messiahship, since,
as has been mentioned above,-a view in which critics of such
different characteristics as De Wette, Olshausen, and Bloomfield coincide,-John no doubt hesitated to administer the rite
to him because he was aware of Christ's superior wisdom and
sanctity.
Adopting this explanation of the expression " I knew him
not," we have only to solve the difficulty which has been
already touched upon, viz., how, considering the relation in
which the mother of John and Jesus stood to each other, it
could happen that the Baptist should know the person of
Jesus and yet be ignorant that he was the promised Messiah.
Winer considers this difficulty inexplicable; and it must be
admitted that, on account of the want of positive historical
information upon this point, no explanation can be made
which shall be indisputably correct, and be beyond cavil or
objection. The solution above given bears at least the air of
plausibility, but is not, as none cal be, wholly satisfactory.
It is not necessary, however, nor are we bound, to show the
entire harmony of the two facts; it is enough to have shown,
as has been done, that they are not irreconcilable.
* Biblisches Realworterbueh, 3 te Auf., erst. Band, S. 586. Anm. 6.




JOHNZS FAMILY RELATIONS.            75
The English theologians, generally, adopt the view advoca ted by Beard; and contend that John knew not the person
of Jesus until he appeared to receive the Messianic baptism.
Such is the opinion expressed by Home in his " Considerations" (~ 6.), and by Taylor, in his "Life of Christ" (~ 9. 1.);
the latter of whom says: " The Baptist had never seen his
face.  But immediately the Holy Ghost inspired S. John
with a discerning and knowing spirit; and, at his first arrival, he knew him and did him worship." IHuxtable, in his
"Ministry of S. John the Baptist" (p. 59.), though admitting the possibility of a previous acquaintance between the
Forerunner and his divine kinsman, inclines to the same belief. He regards the fact of their being related favorable to
"the supposition of some degree of personal acquaintance";
but thinks that the distance lying between their respective
abodes, and, particularly, the language of Luke in 1: 80.,
render " the supposition improbable."
It is possible, indeed that John may not have been personally acquainted with Jesus; but the narrative of Matthew (3: 14.) seems clearly to imply a previous acquaintance;
and the manner and connection in which the Baptist says
"I knew him not" (Jno. 1: 31.), show that he means, "I
knew him not as he'that baptizethin the Holy Spirit,' as'the Son of God,' the promised Messiah."
We may, therefore, with great propriety, conclude, after
this review of all the facts of the case, that John became
acquainted in his early years with his cousin Jesus, that he
was also aware of his great moral purity; nay, we may even
suppose that there arose within him at times an anticipation
of his high destination; but, notwithstanding he knew him
not, not until the Spirit of God had revealed that he was
the Messiah, the Son of God.




76             DEVELOPMENT OF JOHN,. AND
CHAPTER III.
DEVELOPMENT OF JOHN, AND PREPARATION FOR HIS PUBIfO
MINISTRY.
As the sacred history in general represents to us only simple matter-of-fact, only the great and note-worthy appearances
in the epochs of the theocratic reign, and exhibits these in
their brief and simple outline, and, refraining from all further
reflections upon the way in which and the reason for which
these events occurred, affords us only now and then, by slight
intimations, a glance into the secret workings of the divine
Spirit in-individuals and among the entire nation; so do we
findin the history of John, respecting the formation and development of his character until the time of his public appearance, only a few slight hints given in the evangelical
narrative, which suffice, indeed, to throw light upon his ministry at a later period, but entirely cut off all speculation upon
every over-curious question respecting details and unimportant
circumstances. We must, therefore, content ourselves, not
with attempting inquisitively to discover, by all kinds of
conjectures and strange gubtilties, what the divine wisdom has
intentionally veiled from our eyes, but only with endeavoring to construct, out of the general hints given us respecting
him, the formative process by which the character of this notable personage was produced.
Of the manner in which his domestic education was conducted, we may obtain the most correct knowledge by proceeding from the fact that he was descended from a priestly
race, and of pious parents who were in possession of precious




PREPARATION FOR HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY. 
promnises regarding their son; and that he was destined by the
angel, even before his birth, for a Nazarite (Luke 1: 15.).
Since his father was not sufficiently rich, in all probability, to
employ private instructors for his son, as was the custom at
this time in Palestine, and was too far removed from Jerusalem
to give his son an opportunity of receiving instruction in the
public schools and from the discourses of those in that city
learned in the law, he mu'st himself have taught John in the
chief subjects of instruction, and, above all, in the law, which
formed at that time the principal element in a liberal education. Zacharias was a priest, and as such must have been
well acquainted with the Old Testalment; he was a pious
man, and therefore must he gladly have occupied himself with
the study of holy writ. From him, therefore, could his son
have obtained an accurate and true, though, as might be expected from the stand-point of his instructor, a limited insight
into the contents and character of the Old Testament; and
by him might he have been inspired with a worthy zeal and
predilection for this kind of study. His mother, too, was a
pious and god-fearing woman; and since the first and deepest
religious impressions are commonly made by the mother upon
children, we may justly conclude that John was early imbued
by his intercourse with his mother with the deepest reverence
for God, confidence in him, and obedience to his commands.
To this must be added the fact that he was a Nazarite, dedicated to God from his childhood: he must, therefore, have
early accustomed himself to regard God as the one to whom
alone he belonged, as him to whom he was to devote the
labors of his whole life.*
* A Nazarite (Heb. -t, from the verb -i to separate one's-self) was one
who was consecrated, either by himself or by another, in some peculiar manner




'78              DEVELOPMENT OF JOHN, AND
The numerous prayers and devotional exercises which were
imposed upon him by his vow must have brought him into a
more and more intimate union with him whom he recognized
more and more, as he studied the sacred records, in his power
and holiness as well as in his mercy and truth.  The deprivation of so many of the enjoyments of life, which was necessary
to the fulfillment of his vow, must have served him as a protection against the numerous enticing and seductive allurements by which the season of youth is usually beset; must
have withdrawn him more and more from the attractions of
the outward world; and must, especially under the careful
training of pious parents, have awakened in him, at an early
period, that moral seriousness which afterwards formed the
distinguishing characteristic of his entire life.  Since, furthermore, his parents longed earnestly for the coming of the new
Messianic reign, and since this expectation was particularly
confirmed by the occurrences which took place in connection
with the birth of their son and by those which happened in the
house of their kinswoman Mary; since, finally, they knew that
their son was called to act an important part in the great
epoch then approaching, they must surely have taken upon
themselves at an early period to call the attention of the
to the service and worship of Jehovah. The Nazarite might be either a male
or a female. An instance of the latter was the mother of Samson; examples
of the former were Samson himself and Samuel, which two Old Testament
worthies were, like the Baptist, Nazarites from their birth. The law of the
Nazarite is given in full in Num. 6: 1-21. He was, in particular, to abstain
from wine, strong drinks, and from all that was made from the vine, even vinegar, and was to have his hair unshorn. When the vow of the Nazarite had
been performed, the hair was shaved off and made a burnt offering to Jehovah.
A similar custom was known among several nations of antiquity, and is practised among the Persians of the present day.




PREPARATION FOR HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY.      79
youthful John in particular to those prophecies of the Old
Testament which relate to the Messiah, and to the signs of
the times which indicated his speedy advent; and they must
have directed his thoughts and mind to the promise of a forerunner of the Saviour,-a promise fraught with deep import
for him,-to which the angel had previously referred his father
Zacharias (Luke 1: 16, 17.).
In this manner John grew up to manhood, ever more withdrawing himself from all in the external world which was unpleasant to his feelings and opposed to his leading a life dedicated to God; constantly forming for himself a strong and
impressive character by the perusal of the sacred writings
and by meditation on the divine promises; developing himself
independently from an early period, and impressed, no doubt,
with an anticipation which gradually formed itself within his
soul, that he was destined by God to uplift anew the prophetic
and punitive voice after the manner of the ancient prophets.That, however, which must specially have roused the young
man and have created in him, along with the most violent indignation, a desire also to change the course of things and
direct them to a better end, was, without doubt, the moral
corruption which, as he perceived, had spread among all classes
of the people; the increase of all kinds of crime; the profanation of what he deemed most holy'; and the hypocrisy and
forgetfulness of God which were manifested by the leaders and
most celebrated men of the nation. All this he looked upon
in the light, perhaps, of the distinguished counterpart afforded
by the spotless purity of his cousin,-a purity which he had as
yet by no means recognized in its full perfection, which he had
not himself reached, but to which he was earnestly striving to
attain. In a mind swayed by such powerful feelings as was




80             DEVELOPMENT OF JOHN, AND
his, a daily experience of the demoralization of his people,
added, probably, to the indignation which burned within him,
as it did in all the noble hearts of that time, in view of their
disgraceful slavery,-which, perhaps, he was wont from an
early period to regard as the punishment of their sins,-and
united with a deep and lively knowledge of the Old Testament
Scriptures, with the endeavor to perform the divine commands
in their widest extent, and with the firm expectation that a
new era of the theocracy was about to be ushered in,-might,
it is easy to perceive, have readily produced the resolution to
withdraw himself wholly from the world and retire into solitude, there to live entirely for his God and to wait for the
better time which was approaching.-Whether other external
circumstances besides these, as, for instance, the death of his
parents, by which he was altogether freed from family bonds
and thrown back, as it were, wholly upon himself, contributed
in leading him to adopt this resolution, we cannot determine,
on account of the want of all indications of the fact, yet. it
seems to us not at all improbable.
To a man like John, who must in his youth have become accustomed to so many deprivations, it could not have been. difficult to forego altogether everything which an effeminating
luxury deems essential to existence, and to support in the simplest and poorest manner, the life which he purposed to devote
for the future entirely to God, and to pass it in the consideration of divine'things, with the view, it may be, of preparing
himself for a future public appearance as a preacher among
the people. In the mild latitude of Palestine, it was not so
difficult, amid the richness and luxuriance of its vegetation, for
him to dwell secluded from all men in solitary regions; and
we are not obliged to conclude that John sought out expressly




PREPARATION FOR HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY.       81
the places which were the most unfruitful and the most valueless. It is indeed related of him that he had been in the wilderness; but we are not to consider this a desert, like the sandwastes of Africa, but rather steppes such as were made use of
freely and with profit by nomads for pasturing their cattle, as
we find that Joseph's brethren tended their herds in the wilderness (Gen. 37: 22.),-lonely and uninhabited places, uncultivated and pathless, but affording readily a frugal subsistence to the children of nature.  In Matt. 3: 1, John's place
of residence is called more definitely " the wilderness of Judea;" and it was, therefore, the region lying to the west of the
Dead Sea, which, on account of its wildness and solitude, was
best adapted to the necessities of John.
Here he lived probably in caves, using for his sustenance
what nature afforded,-according to Matt. 3 4, and Mark 1:
6., locusts and wild honey. Among the immense swarms of
locusts which had before this been a frequent plague of Palestine, we find many kinds which were esteemed edible, if they
were not considered dainties, for their flesh when roasted tastes
very much like that of boiled crabs, and which must have constituted an article of food for the poorer classes, especially, on
account of its cheapness.  Locusts were allowed to be eaten
by the law of Moses (Lev. 11: 22.). In the eastern countries
besides Palestine several species of the locust were used as
food.  Diodorus Siculus mentions a people of 1Ethiopia who
were so fond of them that they were called acridophagi, locusteaters (24, 3.). Even the Greeks are spoken of by Aristophanes as using them for an article of diet (Achar. 1116, 1117.).
They are eaten at the present time by the Arabians and Africans; and even form an extensive article of commerce (Sparman, Voyage vol. 1. p. 367. if.).  They are boiled, and after



82              DEVELOPMENT OF JOHN, AND
ward eaten with butter; or they are roasted and eaten with
salt; and they are evei ground to flour ind made into bread
(Niebuhr, Arabien, S. 171.). Such locusts as these it was
which afforded his daily sustenance.
So also honey was among the Jews a favorite means of
sustenance, as one can perceive at once by the manner in
which the promised-land of Canaan is mentioned, " the land
which flows with milk and honey." They had, however, not
only the honey of bees, but also, the honey of grapes (thickened must), and the honey of trees (the thick glutinous mass
which is formed upon the leaves of certain trees.). By the
wild honey here mentioned we must understand either the kind
last described, or that prepared by wild bees. Several modern
critics (as Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Meyer,) are of opinion that
by the "wild honey" (u4e d/qoov) here mentioned is meant
a honey-like substance which is found upon the leaves of
certain trees in the East.  Sometimes this substance exudes
from the plants of its own accord; sometimes it flows forth
through a puncture made by an insect called the coccus manniparous (manna-producing coccus); and sometimes it is a deposit made by certain insects which live upon the trees.*  It
is better, however, to suppose that the honey of wild bees
is here referred to; for wild honey is even now, according to
Schulz (Leitung v. 133.), found abundantly in the wilderness
of Judea, where it is deposited by the bees in the clefts of
* Honey of this kind is found in abundance in California. It collects in the
month of July on the upper surface of the leaves of willow trees and of the white
oak; from which it is gathered by the Indians in considerable quantities. A
saccharine substance exudes also from a species of pine which grows upon the
Sierra Nevada; which, like the honey, or manna, found on the willows and
white-oaks, has an exce Singly pleasant flavor (San Joaquein Journal, 1851.)




PREPARATION FOR HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY.      88
rocks and in hollow trees. That such "wild honey" as this is
what is here mentioned, Winer, (Realw6rt. Art. Honig) and
De Wette (Conk. zu. Matt. 3:4.) are of opinion, in which
they agree with Robinson (N. T. Lex. Art. "'Ay7to), who
says  "Maundrell saw many bees on the flowers between
Jericho and the Dead Sea (p. 115.); and Forskal notes that
he often saw honey flowing in the woods of Arabia, Descr.
Animal. p. xxiii." Josephus describes the region of Jericho as
productive of honey (yetr07,oQoooS, Bell. Jud. 4. 8. 3.).  Treehoney, on the other hand, was never common in Judea, least
of all in that region bordering on the Dead Sea.
These were simple means of subsistence, it is true; but they
were abundantly sufficient to prolong life, and more than this
John did not desire.-Alike poor was his raiment, which is
described to us as a garment of camel's hair and a leathern
girdle. From the hair shed by camels in the spring, cloths
and garments of the coarsest kind were prepared, which only
the poorest and the lowest class of people wore; but they
were strong and lasting, perfectly answering the objects of
raiment.-Some understand by " raihnent of camel's hair" the
camel's skin with the lair on, and' suppose John to have worn
such a garment as the ancient prophets wore sheep-skins and
goat-skins (Heb. 11: 31.); but a camel's skin garment would
have been too heavy to carry conveniently, and so to understand the expression violates the natural meaning of the Greek
(EvsAva arot qey.v, xayuiov). As the leathern girdle which
the Baptist wore was in imitation of that of the prophet Elijah
(2 Kings 1: 8.), so it is probable was his garment of camel's
hair copied after that worn by the same Old Testament
prophet; for we may with propriety suppose that the expression "hairy man" (Heb. ni]. &a.) applied to Elijah in 2




84             DEVELOPMENT OF JOHN, AND
Kings 1: 8., refers to the kind of garment with which he was
clothed (See Thenius, Biicher d. Kionige S.262.).-The second
chief article of the Baptist's attire was a Teathern thong by
which his garment of camel's hair was fastened; and this
formed a striking contrast with the girdles of the rich which
were for the most part set with precious stones.
Thus is John represented to us at his first public appearance; and thus, without doubt, have we to conceive him during
his previous residence in the wilderness,. a complete picture
of the austere prophets of more ancient times, as one of whom
he -must have regarded himself, namely, as the successor of
Elias; and representing symbolically in his outward life and
residence the spiritual wilderness in which he was to labor and
the repentance which he was to require.
That it was not an altogether unheard-of and unusual thing
to withdraw in this way from all human society into lonely and
distant places, we ascertain among other ways from the description which Josephus, a Jewish historical writer, who lived
nearly at the same time with John, gives of his own life; for,
after he had thoroughly examined and tried all the three sects
of the Jewish people, he also made the attempt to discover how
the instruction of a rigorous ascetic, whom he calls Banus, would
suit him. He thus describes him: "I was informed that a
person named Banus lived in the wilderness, who used no other
clothing than what grew upon trees, and had* no other food
but that which was troduced spontaneously, and bathed himself often in cold water, by night and by day, for the sake of
purification." (Life, 2.). In this case, then, we have a still
stronger instance of asceticism and of the renunciation of all
human fellowship; for the raiment of Banus was not prepared,
as was John's, artificially by the hands of men; and, therefore,




PREPARATION FOR HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY.        85
we can, at least, regard the Baptist as not the only Jew in
whom such an idea of anchoretism unfolded itself, and as not
the most rigorous in carrying it out into practice.
But, in what way was John employed during his stay in the
wilderness? He was engaged, no doubt, in perfecting his
character, in mortifying his fleshly appetites, in the suppression
of sinful desires, and in the study of the Word of God. If, ih
general, the spending of life in solitude is not the surest means
of overpowering sinful inclination, and of extinguishing sin,
yet, in the case of John, one is authorized to conclude, from the
serious earnestness which he exhibited in his whole life, and
with which, therefore, he must have proceeded to the work of
attaining moral perfection, that the seductive power of all
sensual enticements was lost upon him on account of his living
in a manner and in a place far removed from their influence.;
and that, in like manner, the habit of practising a morality,
confessedly only Jewish, but such as was prescribed by the law,
removed far from him the temptation to many sins of practice
and of thought.. It is just as certain, iowever, that he could
never have attained in this way to perfect sinlessness; but, as
he himself confessed in his address to Christ, " I have need to
be baptized of thee," he must have remained still sinful in the
inmost recesses of his heart. For this reason could he always
be to the corrupt people an example and a model of moral
purity, as far as such could be obtained by conformity to the
Jewish law; whilst he, likewise, in accordance with the divine
plan, afforded, on the other hand, a standing proof how impossible it is, without the new spirit which is conferred by Christ
upon believers, to attain to a perfect change of heart. In this
struggle of his after perfection, his constant employment with
the Word of God, must manifestly have been a great assistance:




86             DEVELOPMENT OF JOHN, AND
for, in general, he who has God ever before his eyes and
is always directing his senses and ideas towards him, is led
away into sin with much more difficulty than the man who is
engaged in the ordinary avocations of life. The chief object
of this employment, perhaps, in his case, was one which was
in harmony with the impressions which he had received in
youth and other external motives which constantly worked
upon him,-the examination of the divine promises respecting
the sending of the Messiah. The truth and certainty of this
mission must have been speedily confirmed in his mind, and, in
like manner, a conviction of the probability, nay, necessity
that the new reign should shortly commence.-At this point,
however, it is proper to inquire, what were his views of the nature of this kingdom?
Judging by expressions uttered by him at a later period, we
are forced to conclude that John, during his residence in the
wilderness, had by no means raised himself completely above
the more approved Messianic expectations of his people, as
they had probably been impressed upon him, in his childhood,
by his parents; and, therefore, that he had not, as indeed
Christ alone had, a clear conception of the fact that the new
kingdgm was to be one wholly spiritual, destitute of all earthly
power and glory. Before the true explanation of the obscure
and apparently contradictory passages of the Old Testament,
respecting the Messiah had been given, it was utterly impossible for a Jew to reject altogether what, especially in
that time of oppression, he esteemed of most value in the
Scriptures,-those announcements which represent the Christ
as a king raised high above all earthly dominions and a prince
arrayed in all the splendor and all the brilliancy of worldly
magnificence. Neither could he bring himself to refer the




PREPARATION FOR HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY.     87
representations of external dominion given in the prophecies to
the inward spiritual dominion of the prince of life; nor distinguish between the first and the second coming of the Lord,
since, in the prophecies they are treated not distinctly but as a
whole. We must, therefore, necessarily attribute to John also
an expectation which shall correspond with these Jewish conceptions.
This expectation of the Baptist's, it must be granted, was
of a higher grade than ordinary; being such as was entertained by the noblest and most religious portion of the people,
and was wholly free from the more crude, sensual and selfish
views held by the Jewish nation at large. John saw distinctly
that a moral change in the people must precede and become
the foundation of the new kingdom; that the happiness which
it was to confer was to pertain only to the pious and repentant;
that, therefore, the haughty and the hypocritical who boasted
that they, as the genuine.descendants of Abraham, would be
the possessors of the kingdom, would not only be excluded
therefrom, but would be visited with punishment and be utterly
destroyed; and that, in general, the power of entering into the
new kingdom would belong by no means to the children of
Abraham  exclusively, but, though that kingdom had been
promised to the Jews and founded for them in particular, would
appertain also to all those among the heathen who should be
converted and shouldrepent of their sins. In these respects,
then, we find his Messianic expectations purer and more consonant with the truth than those usually entertained. He had
recognized the true foundation of the new kingdom; and, consequently, he must, at least, have had a presentiment of its
spirituality, though it is likely that here likewise the earthly
conceptions which he had imbibed from.he opinions prevalent




88             DEVELOPMENT OF JOHN, AND
in his time and from the Messianic promises in Scripture, intermingled with and clouded his more correct intuitions.
But, we have to inquire here, whether with these conceptions
of a Messiah who should possess external power and glory he
could not have united an expectation that some sort of suffering must be endured by the Christ in order to secure his people's salvation.
It is scarcely possible that John, during his zealous researches into the sacred writings, could have entirely overlooked the Old Testament prophecies of a suffering Messiah;
for they are as clear and as evident as those which relate to a
Messiah of royal power. The idea of David, moreover, who
is expressly represented in the Old Testament as the type of
Christ, must often have hovered around his soul; and this
monarch was compelled to suffer much and things hard to be
borne, before he attained to the complete power and glory
which were his rightful possession. Since, then, the Baptist
had a lively perception of the fact that a moral change of the
people was requisite, that God, who had been grievously offended, was to be reconciled once for all with the people by
the expected Messiah, that this Messiah is distinctly announced
in the Old Testament as the suffering servant of God; the expectation might very readily have been created in his mind,
that the appearance of the Messiah would, indeed, be accompanied externally with earthly splendor, as would become a
king, and with the public declaration that he was the promised
king of kings, who would collect all the pious around his person, lead them to God, and found with them a royal and happy
kingdom; but that they who possessed worldly power would
fall upon, persecute and afflict him, just as it had happened
unto king David, and that God would permit this suffering




PREPARATION FOR HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY.     89
of his ambassador in behalf of his new people and kingdom,
and would esteem it an expiation of the suffering )which the
people themselves deserved to receive; and, finally, that he
would allow him, when tried and approved by the fire of affliction, to proceed forward in his invincible power and majesty, as lord and king, unto whom all kingdoms are subject,
and with whom all the pious and all that fear God are to rule
in unbroken felicity. That such ideas as these could easily
have been formed in the mind of John from his assiduous study
of the Holy Scriptures, no one will deny; for, that the theocratic king must endure suffering and persecution was a notion
by no means foreign to the thoughts of the more spiritually
informed class of the people, is proved by the words of Simeon
to Mary (Luke 2: 34, 35.): "Behold, this child is set for the
fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which
shall be spoken against;-yea, a sword shall pierce through thy
own soul also, etc."; in which words the expectation of a
bitter suffering on the part of her son is pre-supposed, so great
that the sorrow which it is to produce in Mary should pierce
her soul like a sword.
Nay, we may proceed a step further. Since John examined
into the Psalms and prophecies of the Old Testament with all
the zeal and the earnestness which were at his command, and
with prayer and supplication to God for. enlightenment,-which
no doubt God did not refuse to bestow,-we may well expect
that a light had already broken upon him revealing the divine
nature of the expected Messiah. As Christ himself proved
his divinity from the Scriptures, John might also have discovered it in the holy writings; he might have had a presentiment, if he was not clearly convinced, that he who was to
appear in human form as the king and saviour of the world,




90             DEVELOPMENT OF JOHN, AND
must be, if not equal to, at least in the highest degree like,
God, a being elevated far above all mankind; nay, he might,
perchance, in accordance with the distinction,-very current
at that time,-which the Jews made between God revealed
and God concealed, and in accordance with the idea of personality which was in that age attributed, in some degree, to
the Revelation of God, the Word of God, have anticipated
that this Word of God, the everlasting, was that which, appearing now as a man among men, was to found a new regal
kingdom; or he might have conceived of him as the angel of
the covenant, as he is specially called in Malachi"(3: 1.), to
which prophet John so often refers in his teaching and discourses,-and this seems. to be indicated as the truth by the
appellation 6 4eo6,usvog (he that comneti), so often bestowed by
John upon Christ, which appears to have been suggested by
the representations of Malachi.
All this might John have believed without changing or retracting in any degree his ideas of an earthly and external
kingdom, or his conceptions regarding the sufferings of the
Messiah. This, therefore, is clearly perceptible, that John
stood upon a very high step of knowledge, standing probably
as high (as will appear more evident when we come hereafter
to consider his public ministry) as one versed only in the Old
Testament and without a divine revelation could stand,-the
highest among all his contemporaries, since he was to exhibit
the Old Testament in its utmost perfection before it was superseded forever. But he was far from having that which Christ
himself first introduced,-the conception of a pure, moral,
spiritual world-dominion, enclosed by no external boundaries,
in which he who is king and lord in the right of his Father,
is also the brother of all those who believe in him, and works




PREPARATION FOR HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY.     91
in all by the. agency of his Holy Spirit. This kingdom could
no man have conceived of until it had been presented to him
as an existing reality; and on this account can the least in
this heavenly dominion be called greater than John, who,
however, was declared by Christ himself to be the greatest
among all who were without that kingdom.
There is no necessity for supposing that John received,
while in the wilderness, special divine revelations regarding
the character of the Messiah and the duties of the office which
he himself, as forerunner, was to discharge; for, as we have
seen, all the knowledge which he exhibited upon these points
during his ministry was such as he might have acquired from
a study of the Old Testament prophecies, and such as, in point
of fact, others of the Jewish nation'had in many respects attained.-Neither are we required to believe, on the other hand,
that his views were not self-evolved, but received from his associations with others of the Jewish people. In accordance
with this supposition, a number of biblical writers have maintained that John received his distinctive and peculiar ideas
from the sect of the Essenes, who resided, as he did, in the
region known as "the wilderness of Judea" (Pliny, H. V. 5.
17.). But, aside from the fact that we find no hint of this in
the ISew Testament, it is clear from the representations which
Josephus and Philo give of this Jewish sect, that neither the
Baptist's manner of life nor his doctrine had anything
in common with their peculiarities. As far as he agreed
with them, he agreed also with others among the Jewish
nation; and in not a few important particulars he differed
from them altogether; which would not have been the case,
had he received among them his mental and moral development.




92             DEVELOPMENT OF JOHN, AND
So prepared on every hand for the great work which he
proposed to perform,-namely, to lead the people by his
preaching and his admonitions to repentance,-John at length
made his appearance, not, howeier, by any means of his own
arbitrary choice and in his own power, but specially called to
his ministry by the Lord himself (Luke 3: 2.).' The words
which he uses in John 1: 33., "he that sent me to baptize,
atc.," cannot, it is admitted, prove of themselves that a speSial revelation had been communicated to him, summoning
aim to his labors,- for the announcement of the token by
which he might recognize the Messiah, which confessedly presupposes a particular revelation, may first have been made to
him during his public ministry,-since his internal assurance
that he was in this way to fulfill the will of God, might very
well have been considered by him a divine call (just as we
find in the case of Elijah no special summons from God, who,
however, always spoke and acted in the name of the Lord
and in the assurance of his divine cooperation); but we read
in Luke 3: 2. that he actually received a positive call from
heaven; and we have, therefore, no ground to doubt the truth
of a fact which we find to have been of so frequent occurrence
in earlier times in the case of the prophets. As we merely
read of them, "the word of the Lord came to me," or' upon
me," and are not informed whether it came in a vision, or
while its recipient was in an ecstasy, or through the agency of
an angel, or in what other way, so we cannot determine in
what manner John received his summons from on high.
The time of the appearance of the Baptist, therefore, was
not decided upon by himself; but was determined by the Lord.
The call which he received resembled that given to the prophets of the Old Testament. The word of the Lord came




PREPARATION FOR HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY       93
unto him, urging him to a certain course; but the impulse of
the Spirit then given was, as in the case of the Old Testament
prophets, only transitory, and not abiding as it is under the
New Testament dispensation: it was rather sudden and momentary; not calm and continually active, as it is under the
economy of grace.-^ This " word of the Lord", however, has a
two-fold character: it is either a discourse of God's addressed
to the people as though personally present, which the prophets
receive at some moment of special inspiration and announce to
the people, or a single positive command from God to do this
or that. Of thi.latter kind are we to suppose the " word of
the Lord" to John to have been.-He was, therefore, a
real prophet, and as such was led and enlightened in an especial manner by the Spirit of the Lord, and made, perhaps, the
recipient, at times, of particular revelations (as we may infer
from the passage above cited frolm John); but he was not
" the prophet"; for he denied, as we have seen, that he was
such when the messengers of the Sanhedrim questioned him on
the point (Jno. 1: 21.),-not the particular Messianic pro.
phet promised by Moses, whom the confused and indistinct
conceptions of the people were accustomed to distinguish from
their Messianic king.




94          JOHN'S PREACHING OF REPENTANCE.
PART THIRD.
MINISTRY OF JOHN BEFORE THE PUBLIC APPEARANCE OF
CHRIST.
CHAPTER I.
JOHN'S PREACHING OF REPENTANCE.
PREPARED by God, by whose voice he was at length summoned forth, in quiet solitude for his prophetic calling, endowed with power to perform the duty intrusted to him, and
enlightened as far as was necessary to the discharge of the
duties of his office, John made his appearance in the neighborhood of the Jordan, where contiguity to large towns and
commercial roads would afford him access to great multitudes
of people, where his preaching might be farthest extended in
influence, and the reputation of his labors be the most noised
abroad. According to Matthew, his residence was, ordinarily,
that portion of the region round about Jordan which bordered upon the Dead Sea, and from which a steppe stretched
away into the. land of Judea; whence it is called by that
evangelist, "the wilderness of Judea."
The " wilderness of Judea" in which the Baptist resided
"till the day of his showing unto Israel" (Luke 1: 80.), was
strictly speaking a district in the eastern side of the territory
of Judah, bordering on the Dead Sea (Josh. 15: 61., Judges
1: 16.), and containing the city of Engedi and others. It is
described as extending, in length, from the right bank of the




JOHN'S PREACHING OF REPENTANCE.         95
Kidron, about twelve miles above Jerusalem, to the southwestern end of. the Dead Sea; and, in width, from the same
sea westwardly to the mountains of Judah. This region is comparatively barren, abounding in rocks which are clothed with
little vegetation but are full of grotto-like caves; and containing few  houses and sparsely inhabited, though well
adapted to pasturage.-Here it was that John first made his
public appearance; but his ministry was not long restricted
to this particular theatre. He made his way northwardly
until he came into the vicinity of the Jordan, where his opportunities for meeting with hearers were most numerous; and
here he prosecuted during his brief career the labors which
had been imposed upon him by Jehovah.
The scene of the Baptist's ministry may be readily determined by a comparison of the New Testament passages
which bear upon the point (Matt. 3: 1., Mark 1: 4., Luke
8: 3., and Jno. 1: 28., 3: 23., 10: 40.). Two of the three
evangelists first named, Matthew and Mark, speak in general
terms, including under the term " wilderness" the sterile valley
of the Jordan; the other, Luke, distinctly points out the
neighborhood into which, on leaving the wilderness proper,
the Baptist proceeded with the view of remaining permanently
and prosecuting the duties of his office; "he came into all the
country about the Jordan."-A comparison of the passages
above noted as found in the evangelist John, will confirm this
statement of Luke's, and show that the scene of the Baptist's labors was the valley of the Jordan, between the Dead
Sea and the sea of Gennesareth (Galilee); now on the east
bank of that river, now on the west bank, but most frequently,
it would seem, on the eastern side.
Thus much in general can be satisfactorily proved from the




96         JOHN'S PREACHING OF REPENTANCE.
New Testament record; but with regard to certain particular
points, it is not so easy to come to a satisfactory conclusion.
The first of the passages cited from John (1: 28.) represents
him as baptizing "in Bethabara beyond the Jordan." It is
clear enough here that the east side of the river is referred to,
as is put beyond a doubt by the expression " beyond the
Jordan" (nroEav rov'Io2oJvov), which can have no other meaning (cp. Matt. 4: 14, and Jno. 10: 40.); but it is not
yet ascertained with certainty what was the precise situation
of the town here mentioned. Wherever situated, the name
of Bethabara is not that by which it is known in the
New Testament; for the reading of the received text is
derived from a conjecture of Origen's; instead of which almost all the best MSS. have Bethany (B9auvita), and this is
given by all the editors from Wetstein to Tischendorf. Now
this Bethany could not have been the town of that name
which was distant about two miles from Jerusalem (Matt. 21:
17., Jno. 11: 18.): it must, therefore, have been another
place of the same name, situated on the eastern bank of the
Jordan. In Origen's time no such a village as Bethany was
found here; but a town called Bethabara was then pointed
out as the place where John had baptized; hence his reason
for changing the MS. reading of the passage in the evangelist. This tradition, however, may have been false. If
true, it would follow either that the town in question had two
names, one in one period and another at another, or that
the original Bethany having been destroyed, Bethabara had
been built on the same location. The related meanings of the
two words, Bethany, place of a ship, and Bethabara, place of
a ford or crossing, are favorable to either view. The precise
situation of this village, which is perhaps the Bethbarah of




JOHN'S PREACHING OF REPENTANCE.         97
Judges 7: 24., is not given by.Origen: we learn from him only
what we already knew from the New Testament record, that
it was located somewhere on the eastern shore of the Jordan.
The next and last time that the place of John's labors is
mentioned in the New Testament, we find him engaged in baptizing "in tEnon, near to Salim, because there was much
water there" (Jno. 3: 23.). The connection shows that the
Baptist was now on the west side of the Jordan. If we receive the testimony of Jerome and Eusebius as trustworthy,
Salim (then called Salumias), and consequently,Enon (Hebrew, Eynon, from'Ayin, i. e. fountains), was situated eight
miles south of Scythopolis (Bethshan,  1 Sam. 31: 10.).
The latter place lay about two miles west of the Jordan, and
eighteen from the southern end of the sea of Galilee..Enon,
theref6re, it would seem, was situated very near, if not directly upon, the western bank of the Jordan, in Judea, it is
most probable, close to the borders of Samaria. It was in the
river Jordan that John, as was his custom, was now performing the rite of baptism, "because," as Olshausen says, "the
water there, being deep, afforded conveniences for immersion,"
and not, as some suppose, in a fountain or stream pertaining
particularly to the town of A3non.-Here, at JEnon, the Baptist prosecuted his ministry for a time; but soon after, crossing over into Perea, he was seized by Herod, and cast into
prison. That side of the Jordan, therefore, on which he had
commenced administering his baptism (Jno. 10: 40.), was the
one on which his labors at length came to a close.
Mark says nothing respecting the time at which John made
his public appearance: Matthew connects his narrative of
the Baptist with what he says respecting the birth of Christ
with the insignificant words, "in those days": Luke alone




98          JOHN'S PREACHING OF REPENTANCE.
fixes it by a precise chronological statement. The latter
evangelist dates his appearance " in the fifteenth year of Tiberius" (3: 1.), who, it is known, succeeded to the adnmnistration of the Roman empire in the year 671 of the city Rome
(19th of August) and 14 of the Christian era: it was, therefore, in the year 29 after Christ, at which time Jesus, if he was
really born in the year 4 A.C., must have been 33 years old,
and John six months older. It may indeed be that the number of the years of Tiberius' reign is here reckoned from the
time he was made co-regent with Augustus; and, in such
event, this occurrence must have taken place from two to four
years earlier. There is, however, no decisive ground for this
supposition; for it is not at all probable that the reign of
Tiberius is dated by Luke farther back than the death of
Augustus, who illuminated everything in such a degree by the
splendor of his name, that Tiberius would scarcely have been
thought worthy of being reckoned the ruler of the empire so
long as he was still alive.-Pontius Pilate governed, at this
time, as.procurator, the land of Judea; for, after the banishment of Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:
22.), his possessions, Judea, Samaria and Idumea, were ruled
over by Roman procurators (from 6 A.D.) of whom the fifth
was Pontius Pilate. Since this governor, on going to Rome,
to plead to an accusation before the emperor, in the tenth
year of his office, found Tiberius dead on his arrival at that
city (789 A.U.C. and 37 A.D.), he must have been in power
about two years at the period when John commenced his public
preaching. If, therefore, we suppose Luke to reckon the beginning of Tiberius' administration from his co-regency with
Augustus, it would scarcely give time for Pilate to have
obtained his government.




JOHN'S PREACHING OF REPENTANCE.         99
The second son of Herod the Great, Herod Antipas, had
obtained Galilee and Perea after his father's death; and over
these he now ruled under the title of tetrarch; while the
youngest son, Philip, possessed Gaulonitis, Batanea, Iturea,
and'Trachonitis. The Lysanias of Abilene mentioned in the
same connection, appears not to have belonged to the family of
Herod; at least, he could not have been his son, and still less
that Lysanias of Abilene who was the son of Ptolemy, for that
person had died thirty years before this period. He is here
mentioned by Luke among the rulers, because Abilene had at
an earlier period belonged to the kingdom of Herod; and'it is
his object to enumerate the rulers then presiding over each
portion of that kingdom.
After speaking of the secular rulers who then presided over
the land of Judea, Luke'makes mention of those to whom
was assigned its spiritual government; for this was important
to the course of his history. It is well known that, according
to the Jewish law, there could only be one high priest at a
time; but we have two here mentioned. From the fact that
Annas is.mentioned first, and still more clearly from the representation in Acts 4: 6., it is evident that Luke considered
him the actual high priest; yet he was not altogether certain
as to the manner in which he should represent the relation
which existed between this Annas and Caiaphas. The state
of the case was this:-Annas had been deposed from his
office some years previously by the Roman proconsul Quirinus:
since, however, this removal was altogether contrary to the
law, according to which the dignity of the high-priesthood
was to belong, during his entire life-time, to him to whom it
had once descended, it could not be easily decided whether
Annas was still to be regarded as high priest, or not. After




100         JOHN'S PREACHING OF REPENTANCE.
several other high priests had each for a short time occupied
the station, Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas, had been
appointed to the office about the year 26 A.D.; the elevation
of whom to that dignity had only served to confirm the influence of Annas and to increase the respect paid him by the
nation, though his son-in-law properly possessed the office, and
was in fact the real high priest.
This was the time, then, in which, as Luke narrates, John
was summoned from his retirement by the Lord, and began to
preach publicly "the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness
of sins"; that is, he invited the people to receive baptism, in
order to show thereby their repentance, and that they might
be able to hope for the forgiveness of their sins. In the next
section we shall examine with somewhat of minuteness into
the meaning of this expression, when we come to a more par*ticular consideration of the baptism of John; while we shall
confine ourself here to the special examination, by way of
preliminary, of that one of the two separate and yet intimately connected offices of his ministry which constituted the
preparation for the other, viz. the repentance which he required as an indispensable pre-requisite to his baptism.
The subject-matter of the preaching of John is given in
Matt. 3: 2., in words consonant with the accounts of Mark
and Luke: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
By repentance (Greek, eSTrdvowa, literally, a change of mind,
or purpose), he evidently meant to imply not merely sorrow and
contrition for sins which were past, but also an earnest effort
on the part of the repentant to free himself from sin, to obtain
another disposition, and to act in accordance with the will of
God. The repentance, therefore, which he required, included
the effort to acquire a pure heart and a God-fearing dispo



JOHN'S PRaAICHING OF REPENTANCE.          101
sition, which should evince itself outwardly in good works;
and in the attempt to atone for former guilt of conduct by a
present contrary practice of virtue.
It is agreed by all lexicographers of eminence that the
word "repent" (leTvoelte), as used by the -Baptist as well
as by Christ and the Apostles, means much more than it
does in ordinary English usage  Indeed, repent can hardly be
called a correct rendering of the original; for this idea is
expressed in the New Testament by the verb [uEraueoeuac  &
(metamelesthai).  Meyer in his Commentary (on Matt. 3: 2.)
has the following on the word: "metanoeite, signifies the
change of the moral disposition which was required in order to
obtain a share in the Messianic kingdom."  De Wette defines
still more closely: "sententiam mutate (change your minds),
resipiscite (return to your senses), bessert euch (reform)., a technical expression and ruling idea of Christianity, deeper and
more comprehensive than the Hebrew nicham, (for which the
Septuagint has metanoein) and shubh (which is equivalent to
metanoein in Aquinas ed. quint.), and also more comprehensive
than the metanoein of the Apocrypha (Wisdom 5: 3., Sirach
1: 24.); connecting with the idea of a new life."  An examination of all the passages in the New Testament in which
this word and its cognate metanoia (translated in the received
version by repentance) occur, will show that the verb ought to
be rendered in almost every case by reform, and the noun by
reformation; for such is most clearly the sense in which the terms
are employedby the inspired authors of the New Testament.*
* A very interesting and fundamental discussion of the meaning of these Greek
terms and the proper mode of rendering them, will be found among the Preliminary Dissertations which Dr. Geo. Campbell (of Scotland) has published in
the first volume of his judicious work on the Four Gospels (Dissert. No. VI.)




102         JOHN'S PREACHING OF REPENTANCE.
That John really comprehended all that is described above
under his idea of repentance, is made particularly clear by the
maxims of conduct which he inculcated upon the several
classes of people who came to him, and inquired in what
manner they should manifest their repentance (Luke 3: 1114.). He had just previously informed them that they should
bring forth fruit meet for repentance, that is, that they should
exhibit by their mode of life the fruit of their repentance;
and they now ask of him, what they must do to meet the conditions of this requirement. John might now have insisted
directly upon the necessity of a new disposition; but the principle of love had not yet appeared in the flesh as the model
and representative of all races, and the people were yet too
much taken up with the merely external to receive any great
amount of enlightenment from such a description of the new
state of mind which was implied in repentance. For minds
such as theirs, which, as is evinced even by their question,
could comprehend nothing beyond the outward and what
occurred before their eyes, the outward had to be brought
prominently forward; not because the essence of holiness and
righteousness consisted therein, bfut because it was only by
these single cases, as by examples, that it could be shown to
them in what manner they were on all occasions to conduct
themselves, in order that, by means of the outward expression
of the disposition which they wished to obtain, that is, by their
actions, they might gradually come to a knowledge of the disposition itself, and, forming themselves inwardly from without,
finally make it their own. We perceive, therefore, that John
adopted that same wise proceeding, the only one in fact which
was adapted to the stand-point of the people,-which Christ
put into operation in his sermon on the mount, when he




JOHNtS PREACHING OF REPENTANCE.        103
exhibited to men an example of a perfect pious action as a
mirror, in order that they might by looking in it perceive the
contrast made by their own conduct, and that, in the effort to
conform to this model instituted by him, they might appropriate to themselves also the disposition from which those
good works flow.
As Christ did there, so did John here exhibit in the most
natural manner unto each individual among his hearers the
precise contrast to the vice which he most frequently practised and which was most deeply rooted in his affections.Thus, he impressed it as a duty upon the people at large,
the most of whom were either Pharisees or Sadducees, whose
selfishness exhibited itself most prominently in covetousness
and want of benevolence (for they only gave the alms prescribed by the law), that they should continually communicate
to the necessitous a portion of their possessions and property,
if they were not compelled to use it for the supply of their
own necessities. To the tax-gatherers (i. e. publicans) who
were continually guilty of committing the greatest injustice and extortion, he assigned it as their duty, that they
should take no more from the people than was right and
appointed by law. He commanded the Roman soldiers, on
the other hand, who allowed themselves to be guilty of every
kind of oppression and annoyance towards a subjugated people, to do violence to no man and to oppress none, to be satisfied with their pay and not to be covetous of more. Thus
John understood how to adapt to the stand-point of every
one, in a manner intelligible to each, that: great and simple
command, " thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;" and, if
each one had only struggled with serious earnestness against
his cherished sin, he would without doubt have attained to the




104         JOIHN'S PREACHING OF REPENTANCE.
right disposition; and this would, in every case, have pro
duced in each an apprehension of the right and the true.
John, however, not only required the nation in general to
repent, or, as we have seen that he implied under the idea of
repentance, to produce the righteous fruits which belong to its
exercise, but he also assigned, as the true inducement to its
fulfillment, the reason why it was so particularly necessary to
repent; "for," said he, "the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
The appellation "kingdom of heaven" ( l aiai;Ela PTh ouQa',,)
is found only in Matthew, though we read in 2 Tim. 4: 18.
"the heavenly kingdom," a wording entirely correspondent in
sense, though not in form. Elsewhere in the New Testament,
and also in Matthew, the same idea is given by other equivalent expressions,' "kingdom of God" (Mark 1: 14., and elsewhere), "kingdom of Christ" (Matt. 13: 41., 20: 21., Rev.
1: 9.), "kingdom of Christ and God" (Eph. 5: 5.), and
"kingdom of David" (Mark 11: 10.). The idea conveyed by
these different forms of expression is one and the same, the divine spiritual kcingdom, the reign of the l/Iessiah.-The conception of "the kingdom of heaven" is based upon the Old Testament Messianic prophecies; though the Hebrew appellation
(malkmth hassamayim) does not occur in the Hebrew of the
Old Testament, but is found only in Jewish writings of a later
period (first in the Targum  on Mich. 4: 7.), in which it
usually means, however, not the Messianic kingdom, but rather
the Jewish theocracy. In these Old Testament prophecies*
the reign of the Messiah is described as a golden age in which
the authority of Jehovah would universally be acknowledged,
~ Such prophecies are in particular, Dan. 2: 44., 7: 14, 27., 9: 25.; to which
may be added Ps. 2, and 110.; Is. 2: 1-4. (coll. Mich. 4: 1.), 11: 1.; Jer. 23 
5., 31: 31., 32: 37., 33: 14.; Ezek. 34: 23., 37: 24.




JOHNIS PREACHING OF REPENTANCE.        105
the Jewish theocracy be established in unexampled splendor
and purity, and peace and happiness prevail throughout the
world. The Jews in general interpreted these prophecies too
literally, assigning them a meaning almost wholly temporal.
They expected a Messiah who would appear in the clouds of
heaven, and, descending to earth, would free their nation from
bondage, restore their ancient worship, establish a temporal
dominion, and, subduing all others, rule over them in happiness and glory forever. In this expectation they greatly
erred, as those who listened to the Baptist's teaching soon
discovered.
What then did John understand by Ithe phrase " the kirngdom
of heaven"? A heavenly kingdom had already been founded
by mneans of the old covenant made with the patriarchs of the
Jewish people, which had subsequently been renewed, confirmed and more firmly grounded upon the basis of the Old
Testament with the people in the time of Moses; in which
kingdom God ruled unlimited, as the absolute sovereign of the
Israelitish nation, by means of his organs and representatives.
But this divine kingdom was, and from its nature could only
be, imperfect. The laws of God were frequently broken
through the hard-heartedness and worldly inclination of the
people; those who should have been his organs, were but too
often only the instruments of sin; disturbances and revolts of
the whole nation from their heavenly king but too frequently
occurred; and if this defection did not display itself outwardly
and universally, it was exhibited so much the more by individuals among the nation, and showed itself in thoughts and actions which were enlisted in the service of sin rather than in
that of the divine sovereign. The kingdom of God, therefore,
had never appeared in its full perfection; and the observant




106         JOHN'S PREACHING OF REPENTANCE.
must soon have become conscious of the difference between
what it actually was and what it should have been. A new
epoch, accordingly, had to be introduced by a new act of the
divine power, such an epoch as had been long since announced
in the promises of the Old Testament, and had been earnestly
looked for by all believers; in which a separation was to be
made in the multitude who now boasted themselves in their
appellation of "people of God," and only the true servants of
God were to be chosen as the citizens of the kingdom, while
the rest were to be rejected; when God should, by means of
an instrument truly correspondent to its vocation, rule over
this new kingdom, which, on its part, should never more be
subjected to change and degeneracy by sin working from
within, or from enemies attacking from without; in a Word,
when all the precious promises respecting a happy,. untroubled
life and uninterrupted enjoyment, should be fulfilled in the utmost measure, so that, for the members' of this kingdom,
heaven should in truth have descended to earth.
Since John and a few of his contemporaries,-each of
whom, however, hoped for the satisfaction of his own individual, end often not very pure, wishes, from the entrance of
this heavenly kingdom,-recognized the fact that this celestial
reign was to be one thoroughly spiritual; so did he, still
further, recognize the additional fact, that entrance into it
would be allowed only to those who turned in repentance unto
God; and therefore he proposed repentance as the chief and
fundamental condition of participation in its enjoyments.Just as clearly did he perceive that unrepentant and obdurate
sinners would become obnoxious to divine punishment on the
coming of this new kingdom (although, as we further see, he
conceived of'this punishment, in a manner not accordant with




JOHN'S PREACHING OF REPENTANCE.           10 
the truth, as connected externally with the appearance of the
Messiah; compare, on the other hand, the words of Christ,
Jno. 3: 13-19.); and, in order to exhibit this more intelligibly to the people, he makes use of the two similes, or comparisons, which we have recorded in Matt. 3: 10, and 12, and
in Luke 3: 9, and 17. He likens the people to trees, which,
by the nature of their fruit, it being either good or bad, enable us to tell whether they are also inwardly pure and healthy,
or not, and says: "The trees which bring forth unsound fruit,
-therefore the men whose actions evince the impurity of their
minds,-shall be destroyed and-burnt; and, in truth, the axe
now lieth at their root, therefore their judgment is near at
hand, and in a short time they shall receive their punishment.'"*-The second representation (3: 17.) is that of a
farmer, who throws up against the wind, with his winnowingshovel, the corn which has been threshed upon the t-hreshingfloor, in the open air, and thereby causes the chaff to be carried away by the wind, and the pure heavy corn to fall to the
ground; who then collects together the pure corn and brings
it into his granary, but burns the chaff. So also will Christ
do: he will make a separation between the true wheat, the
valuable and useful corn, the children of God, and the chaff,
the valueless sons of the world and of vanity. The true wheat
will he collect into barns, therefore will claim it as his property
and under his protection; but he will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire, which is meant, perhaps, to express the large
* The present tense as here occurring, "is hewn down" (KKOTrrerat) is
used as in Matt. 26: 2. to denote what will immediately and certainly happen,
and not, as might be supposed and as some think, to mark what is accustomed
to happen. The "therefore" (oiv) is conclusive against the latter supposition.




108         JOHN'S PREACHING OF R;'PENTANCE.
amount of the matter collected and the long duration of the
punishment, as well as the complete destruction of sinners.The "floor" here spoken of is what is technically called a
threshing-floor, (Ulawva), a circular space in the open air, the
ground of which has been leveled and beaten hard.  On this
the grain was deposited, and, in the time of our Saviour,
threshed either by the hoofs of oxen or by machines drawn by
oxen.  Here, it is most probable, the term threshing-floor is
used briefly to denote the grain that lay upon it, as in Ruth
3: 2., Job 39: 12.  So it is almost universally taken by commentators; and with this sense the meaning of the verb,lauaOa5qeL (will thoroughly cleanse) best harmonizes.  Thus
conceived the term figuratively designates either men in general (De Wette), or the Jewish people in particular (Baumgarten-Crusius), as the objects of purification: Meyer, however, taking the word in its strict application, interprets it of
the place of judgment.-After being threshed the grain was
thrown up against the wind with a winnowizng-shovel (oTVOV,
Heb. nizreh, Is. 30: 24., Jer. 15: 7.), not "fans" as we read
in the received translation, in order to separate the chaff from
the wheat.-The " chaff" (xovovs, Heb. mots) here mentioned,
is not merely such in its narrow sense, but includes also the
broken straw, or stubble, which was left after the operation of
winnowing had been completed. This in Palestine was used
for fuel.*
From these expressions of John, it seems clear that he conceived of the judgment as something external, which was to
make its appearance on the coming of the Messiah; that he,
therefore, thought that the Messiah himself was to come as
** See on these points Robinson, Bib. Researches, vol. ii. pp. 277. 371., Jahn,
Bib. Archaeolorj, Eng. transl. ~~ 63-65.




JOHN'S PREACHING OF REPENTANCE.        109
the judge (cp. on the other hand, Jno. 3:.); and, since he
could not do this without considering the founder of the new
kingdom not merely a spiritual but also an earthly, worldly,
lord and ruler, he was accustomed to picture to himself the
new kingdom as also worldly and earthly, though resting upon
a truly spiritual foundation. We find, accordingly, that that
which we established as true, in the preceding section, respecting the character of his Messianic expectations, is, in this representation, completely confirmed. This error, as we have
already mentioned, proceeded probably from the fact that he
was not able to distinguish between the first and second coming
of Christ; and that, in consequence, what is to happen only
on the future advent of Christ, he conceived of as immediately
connected with his first advent in his state of humiliation.
Neander, in his Life of Jesus,* developes in his usual felicitous manner the conception which the Baptist.entertained respecting the calling and work of the Messiah and the nature
of his kingdom: "He contradicts the notion, so prevalent
among the Jews, that all the descendants of Abraham who
outwardly observed the religion of their fathers would be taken
into the Messiah's kingdom, while his heavy judgments would
fall upon the pagans alone. On the contrary, he maintains the
necessity, for all who would enter that kingdom, of a moral
new birth, which he sets forth to them by the spirit-baptism;
and proclaims, as a necessary preparation for this new birth, a
consciousness of sin and longing to be free from it; all which is
implied in the word metanoia (reformation,), when stated as the
necessary condition of obtaining the promised baptism of the
Spirit. He expects this kingdom to be visible; but yet conceives it as purely spiritual, as a community filled and inspired
Lebcn Jesm (Life of Jesus), Amer. transl.'48. ~ 40. p. 54.




110           JOHN'S PREACHING OF REPENTANCE.
by the Spirit of God, and existing in communion of the divine
life, with the Messiah as its visible King; so that, what had
not been the case before, the idea of the theocracy and its
manifestation should precisely correspond to each other.     He
has already a presentiment that the willing among the pagans
will be incorporated into the kingdom in place of the unworthy
Jews who shall be excluded.     The appearance of the Messiah
will cause a sifting of tie theocratic people. This pre-supposes
that he will not overturn all enemies and set up his kingdom
at once by the miraculous power of God, but will manifest himself in such a form that those whose hearts are prepared for
his coming will recognize him as the Messiah, while those of
ungodly minds will deny and oppose him. On the one hand, a
community of the righteous will gather around him of their
own accord-; and, on the other, the enmity of the corrupt multitude will be called forth and organized.    The Messiah must
do battle with the universal corruption; and, after the strife
has separated the wicked members of the theocratic nation
from the good, will come forth victorious, and glorify the purified people of God under his own reign."*
" The precise meaning of the phrase " kingdom of heaven" and its equivalents, according to New Testament usage, cannot well be given in the form of
a definition.  Robinson (New Testament Lexicon, on the word Paoti7eia)
gives an explanation of its sense which is quite correct: " Referring to the
Old Testament idea, we may therefore regard the kingdom of heaven in the
New Testament as denoting in its Christian sense, the Christian Dispensation,
comprising those who receive Jesus as the Messiah, and who, united by his
Spirit under him as their head, rejoice in the truth and live a holy life in love
and in communion with him. This spiritual kingdom has both an internal ant
an external form. As internal, it already exists and rules in the hearts of all
Christians, and is therefore present. As external, it is either embodied in the
visible church of Christ on earth, and in so far is present and progressive; or it
is to be perfected in the coming of the Messiah to judgment and his subsequent




JOHN'S PREACHING OF REPENTANCE.              1l1
Josephus in his notice of the Baptist and his ministry makes
no express mention of his announcement respecting the Messiah.  His words are     " For Herod slew him     [John], who
was a good man, and who directed the Jews to practise virtue
and to exercise righteousness towards each other and piety
towards God, and in this way to submit themselves to baptism;
for thus, said he, baptism will prove acceptable unto him, provided that they received it not for the purpose of obtaining
forgiveness of some sins, but for the purification of the body,
since the soul had previously been thoroughly cleansed by
righteousness."*    It is not impossible, notwithstanding    his
silence, that Josephus was acquainted with the Messianic element in the ministry of the Baptist; if so, he made no allusion
to it for fear he should give offence to the Romans by speaking
of a king who was, according to the testimony of John and
that of his fellow-prophets, to subdue the world to himself and
rule over it in triumph forever. But it is more than likely that
the historian did not really comprehend the true object of
John's mission; and that, therefore, his historic representation
spiritual reign in bliss and glory, in which view it is future. But these different
aspects are not always distinguished; the expression often embracing both the
internal and the external sense, and referring both to its commencement in this
world and its completion in the world to come." A very able critical investigation of the meaning of this phrase is to be found in Tholuck's Bergpredigt
Christi, on Matt. 5: 3. p. 70-88. edit. of 1833. This edition of the Commentary has been translated into English, and published in Clark's Foreign Theol.
Library.
* Antiquities, 18. 5. 2: rog'Jovai'ovsa   KEeZeovMra dperr'v  raa/coDvraMf
Ical Tr irpog d2cwa2X ovf siKatoavv& y Kac Irpco rbv' 9ebv evifpe8a XqOFdsvovf
3aiTTLGto) Evvtcgvac OVT7O y7a Kal Tr-v 3d'riTTiLt  diTcodK7ri v avr7 favel-fOac,,uj e'i TlVoV afpiaTtSv wraOalT-jaet XQuO#EVov, 7dX)' aE' aiyvela trod aoarof,
UTre 6I Kal Trf p vixif dSKatolvvvy TTo-eKEtcagaQ/evf7. —Whiston's rendering
is wrong.




112          JOHN'S PREACHING 3F REPENTANCE.
is based upon a mere scientific and not a religious insight into
the character of the Baptist.  Add to this the well-understood
fact that Josephus adapts himself in his writings to the habits
of thought and style of composition prevalent among the
Greeks, and we have a reason which sufficiently accounts for
the circumstance that in his representation of John, we do not
find depicted the living peculiarities of that prophet, but only
the general and most easily apprehended features of his character and ministry. " He saw in John," says Neander (Life
of Jesus, ~ 33.), " only a man of moral ardor, who taught the
truth to the Jews, rebuked their corruptions, arid offered them,
instead of their listrations and outward righteousness, a symbol of inward spiritual purification in his water-baptism. With
such a narrow view as this we could neither understand John's
use of baptism, nor explain his'public labors among such a
people as the Jews. It is but a beggarly abstraction from the
living individual elements which the gospel accounts afford."
In the expectation of the near approach of the judgment
John addressed the multitude which had resorted to him, the
most of whom consisted, according to Matt. 3: o., of Pharisees
and Sadducees, and who, therefore, had, doubtless, come to
the pious man in an unholy and unrepentant frame of mind,
and threatened them with punishment: "Offspring of vipers,
brbod of serpents, children of the devil from whom the first
sin proceeded,* who hath taught you to flee from the coming
judgment?"; that is, who hath persuaded you, you so holy
and pure a people in your own estimation, to flee from the
approaching wrath of God, and that you should come to
* " Gneration of vipers" (yevvruoara eXtdvuv, offspring, )progeny of vipers),
hardly means as Von Rohden here and Olshausen think, children of the devil,
but ratler crafty and malicious men (cp. Ps. 58: 5., Is. 14: 29., 59: 5.).




JOHN'S PREACHING OF REPENTANCE.         113
baptism in order to evince your repentant disposition?-He
hints to them here with strong and bitter irony the real intention which they had in professing repentance and consequently
in submitting to baptism; for they, as we shall see hereafter,
were.for the most part by no means-of a repentant mind (cp.
Luke: 30.), and John penetrated at once their real design in
presenting themselves to him for baptism. Since they were in
his presence. however, the Baptist treats them as persons who
had come to him in all sincerity, and proceeds with holy
seriousness: "If you would really flee from the judgment, act
as a sincere change of disposition requires, and suffer not yourselves to be led away by the thought, we have Abraham for
our father, and are therefore freed from all liability to punishm.ent, and are of right citizens of the new kingdom."  This
was a customary boast of the Jews, the bulwark behind which
they always intrenched themselves, that, in consequence of
their bodily descent from Abraham, God must of necessity be
gracious unto them, and bestow upon them in preference to all,
if not on them alone, all the blessings which they, in their
earthly misconceptions of the prophetic promises, expected from
the appearance of the Messianic kingdom. The falseness of
this idea, however, was evident to those who entertained the
true view of the moral nature of this kingdom and of the
repentance which formed its ground-work. Such a more correct insight into its real nature not only John possessed, but,
as we have seen in a former section, many others, as Simeon,
among the nobler-minded and more advanced of his people.
"This descent," says John, "is of no advantage; it is and can
be, at most, only fleshly, and, unaccompanied by a right disposition, has no worth  God could make these stones which lie
around, children of Abraham as truly as you are, viz., in respect




114         JOHNIS PREACHING OF REPENTANCE.
to real character, not as to physical creation: his power is
unlimited; he is not bound to adhere to the fleshly descendants of Abraham, but, if you are not worthy, he is at liberty
to choose. from among other people the heirs of the promises
made to Abraham. A total change of disposition can. alone
make you partakers once more of the lost heritage, and protect you from the anger of God; and indeed it is high time
to make this change, for the judgment is already at your
doors."
Such is the course of thought in this speech of John's,
which we find in nearly the same words in Matt. 3: 7-10, and
Luke. 3: 7-9. The apparent discrepancies which exist here
between the narratives of Matthewv and Luke are easily harmonized. Luke represents the address of John as directed to
the people at large, the multitude (o'lo!s) that came out
to hear his preaching; and it is entirely appropriate as so
addressed, for the majority of them, being Pharisees, rejected
the counsel of the Baptist, as we learn from Luke: 30.
(coll..Matt. 21: 32., and 11: 16.). This evangelist, however,
evidently speaks generally, not intending to denote the particular classes to wfnom John's discourse was specially addressed,
just as we would say, in popular language (and such is the
language of the Scriptures), "he denounced the assembly,"
when in fact we mean, and are understood as meaning, that he
denounced only a particular class of persons present in the
assembly. Matthew speaks more definitely, representing the
discourse as addressed in particular to the Pharisees and Sadducees; and such, no doubt, was the fact. Both accounts, therefore, are correct; but Luke's is the more general-MAatthew's
the more specific.-Yet are we not to conclude from these representations that no Pharisees or Sadducees believed in and were




JOHN'S PREACHING OF REPENTANCE.          115
baptized by John.*  Only a few of the latter sect, we may
infer fromlthe nature of their religious views, could have been
attracted by his doctrine; but the opinions and feelings of the
Pharisees, especially of the more honest and religious among
them, were more in unison with those of the Baptist.and
from among these not a few, we may judge from. the tenor of
the evangelical narratives, particularly that of Mark (1: 5.,
where, however, "all," 7raa and n7iveg, is not to be taken
strictly, but, as elsewhere in the New Testament, Matt. 10: 22.,
Acts 22: 15., as a kind of popular hyperbole, the dse of which
figure is not infrequent in the New Testament and is not liable to
lead to misconception), were led to profess repentance and to
receive baptism at the hands of the forerunner. Whether the
majority even of these, however, continued faithful to their
vows, is another question, and one that does not affect the point
under consideration  The probability is, they did not (cp.
Jno. 5: 35.); for then, as now, many that ran well at first
speedily wearied in the race,'and retired as soon as the immediate cause of excitement had ceased to operate.
From this discourse of John's we may form a pretty clear idea
of the manner and scope of his preaching. IUpright, repentant
hearts he attempted to lead upward to a more perfect purity,
and to a struggling with their cherished sins, by pointing them
to the near approach of the heavenly kingdom, the citizens of
which all pious souls were destined to be. The obdurate, on
the other hand, and the haughty he sought to crush with
* On the character and opinions of the three different sects into which
Judaism was divided in the time of Christ (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes),
see any one of the common Bible Dictionaries. Kitto's Cyclop. of Bib. Lite
rature gives full and reliable information respecting each under the appropriate
headings.




116           JOHNIS PREACHING OF REPENTANCE.
the whole power of his pious earnestness, to represent them
in their nakedness and sinfulness, to terrify" therm   with the
threatening of that fearful punishment by which they were
shortly to be overtaken, to remove from beneath them the
props of their confidence, which were founded on human ivisdom, and so, perhaps, by the might of his word to subdue
sinners that were not yet totally hardened and callous, and
bring them with anxious sorrow to repentance.
The preaching of the Baptist was an exhortation to repentance and    a holy life.    To  each   class of persons he
assigned its appropriate duties,-to be performed as evidence
of the reality of their repentance, and to be practised as a
means of bringing them to perfection in holiness and virtue.
The Pharisees, and those of a like spirit, he sharply reproved
for their hypocrisy and impiety; these sins being more reprehensible in them, because " contrary to their rule, their profession, and institution."  Others he guided gently into the
straight ways of the Lord; leading them        by mild persuasion along the most direct and shortest road into the heavenly kingdom.-By means of such preaching, he "disposed
the spirits of men for the entertaining the Messiah and the
homilies of the gospel."*
* A very complete and valuable Treatise on these and other points relating
to the Life and Ministry of John, is contained in the " Allegemeine Encyklopadie " of Ersch and Gruber, section second, vol. xxii. (edited by A. G, Hoffman), p. 94-120. The Article was written by Wilibald Grimm. Though
able and learned, it is neological in its tone; but it is by no means of the
Strauss and Baur stamp. The Author characterizes Von Rohden's Treatise,
disparagingly, as "streng supranaturalistisch," "strongly supranaturalistic,"
that is, the opposite of rationalistic or neological. This will be considered a
recommendation among those who hold, as we do in America, to the divine inspiration of the Scriptures.




JOHN'S BAPTISM.                 11 7
CHAPTER II.
JOHN'S BAPTISM.
JOHN was not content with mere preaching, which might so
readily be dissipated without leaving a sufficiently deep
impression upon the memory and hearts of the multitude;
but he sought, in addition, to work upon the moral feelings by
means of an external moral action which could not so easily
fail of producing a deep and lasting impression upon the
minds of those who flocked to hear him preach of the heavenly
kingdom.-In modern times the question has been very much
discussed, whether John in making use of his baptismal rite
had before his eyes, as an example, a custom already commonly
practised among the Jews, namely, the baptism of proselytes
from heathenism to Judaism; or whether this last-mentioned
rite was introduced at a later period, and perhaps in imitation
of the baptism administered by John. Since we find on this
point no positive and definite historic testimony in antiquity,
the question cannot, perhaps, be brought to a final and complete settlement that shall be universally satisfactory; but the
preponderance of arguments upon the point goes to prove,
that, though there were lustrations and ceremonial purifications in common use among the Jews altogether similar to
baptism, yet there was not, before the time of John, any
proper baptism.
There were various symbolical washings and lustrations practised by the Jews, some in accordance with the requirements of
the Mosaic law (Lev. 16: 4., 24, 26, 28., Exod. 19-: 10., Num




118                  JOHN'S BAPTISM.
19: 7, and elsewhere), others of their own free will, without any special directions from the Lofl (Judith 12: 7.,
Josephus, De Bell. Jud. 2. 8. 7. coll. Antiq. 18. 1. 5.).
Such lustrations were prevalent not only among the Jews, but
in the East generally; and seem to have originated from a
common religious conviction among men that they need purification before they can become acceptable to God. Of the
Levitical washings enjoined upon and practised by the Hebrews, none seem to have been performed by immersion; and
all of them were ceremonies which denoted merely a purification
from defilement, not one of them being a rite of initiation into
the Jewish religion or into any society formed for religious
purposes within the pale of the theocracy. How much soever
these symbolical Levitical purifications may in their general
idea have resembled the baptismal. rite administered by John,
they differ so entirely from it in several fundamental particulars
that one can not fail to perceive that the historical connection
of the two is far too slight to warrant the supposition that the
one sprung from and was the complement of the other. The
washings enjoined by the Law had for their object purification
from ceremonial defilement; but the baptism of John did not:
the one rite was performed by the candidates themselves upon
their own persons; the other was administered to its recipient
by the Baptist himself, or by one of his disciples properly
authorized: the former was repeated upon every occasion of
renewed defilement; the latter was performed upon the candidate only once for all. The two ceremonies, therefore, were
essentially different in their nature and object; and, it is not
unlikely, also in their outward form.*
* Such is the opinion of Stuart, Bibl. Repository, vol. 3. p. 341.; of Ebrard,
Kritik d. evangel. Geschichte, S. 284.; and of others.




JOHN'S BAPTISM.                119
The supposition that the rite administered by John was
copied or at least rderived from Jewish proselyte baptisi,'is
equally untenable. This view, though held at one time by
writers of eminence, as Selde (Jtus. lVat. 2. 2.), Lightfoot
(Hor. Hfeb. p. 220.), Kuinoel, Bengel (who wrote an elaborate
treatise in support of his opinion) and others, is given up at
the present day by every biblical critic of eminence. According to the opinion generally received, Jewish proselyte baptism did not originate before the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (70 A. D.); and this view is based upon the apparently
decisive circumstance that we find no mention made of such a
rite either in the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, the New Testament, Philo Judaeus, Josephus, in any of the ancient Christian writers, or in any of the earlier Jewish Targumists.  The
first testimony in its favor is found in the Babylonian Genmaca,
or Commentary of the Talmud (Jebamoth, 46. 2.), which Gemara was composed during the 5th century of our era (from 427
to 500 A. D.), where the rite in question is represented as existing in the 1st century after Christ; but, it is well known, the
traditions of the Gemara are not reliable, and cannot be received
as valid historic testimony. Even admitting the tradition to
be true, however, it does not carry the practice of proselyte
baptism far enough back to make it the prototype of the rite
administered by John; and did it even do this, nothing would
be easier than to show that, though the external form (i. e.
immersion) of the two ceremonies was precisely the same, the
object and recipients of the former were totally different from
the object arid recipients of the latter. In any view of the
case, therefore, John's baptism cannot be correctly said to
have sprung from proselyte baptism; though, on the supposition that the latter existed and was practised at the time of




120                    JOHN'S BAPTISM.
John-(an hypothesis which, as we have seen, is destitute of
histdric testimony), it must be admitted that the form of the
one might readily have suggested the form of the other.*
But, after all, we need not resort to conjecture to discover
the origin of John's baptism.  It was, like that afterwards instituted by Christ, the special appointment of heaven.  So it
is represented in Jno. 1: 33., Luke 3: 2, 3., 7: 30., and especially in Matt. 21: 24-27.; and the Jewish people regarded
its origin as divine (v. 26.).  Immersion in water, external
purification as a symbol of internal, lay so near, and must have
been so universally intelligible, that there is, in truth, no necessity, even had John received no special instructions on the
point, for seeking out a particular model according to which
John conformed in instituting his baptism.     It must have
been his object, rather, to present something new and extraordinary to the people; since, partly, his appearance and the
object of his mission were something beyond the ordinary, and,
partly, because the people might, in this way, be so much the
more easily aroused to attention, and be induced to seek an
acquaintance with this unheard-of appearance and action of
the Baptist's. Now, had proselyte baptism been customary at
this time, it would have given offence and been a cause of
vexation to many, that they who ought to be treated as Jews
and not as heathen, should be placed in the same situation as
the heathen, and should have to submit to the sane rite as
* The most masterly treatise yet written on the subject of Proselyte Baptism
is that of Schneckenburger, Uber d. Alter d. jud. Proselytentaufe, Berlin, 1828.
This critic, in common with De Wette (Archiologie ~. 246.), Meyer (Commentary, on Matt. 3: 5.), Winer (Bib. Realw6rterbuch, Art. Proselyten), Stuart
(Bib. Rep., as cited), and others of the best commentators, assigns to proselyte
baptism an origin posterior to that of Christianity.




JOHN'S BAPTISM.               121
they would if they had just been converted from heathenism.
The question put by the Pharisees, Why baptizest thou then?
(Jno. 1: 25.) appears, moreover, to indicate that such a custom was by no means generally known, performed by many and
upon many; but that the people expected such innovations
only from a man specially called and authorized by God, who
should receive from God full power to found a new community,
or at least to introduce a new epoch in the theocracy (cp. Is.
44: 3., Ezek. 36: 25., Zech. 13: 1.); and that they were
resolved not to endure any such new rites established by a
man who had received no call to perform them, and who
could, or would, in no way justify his clam as a divine ambassador.
It was by no means the intention of John to found a new
community by his baptism; and it could just as little have
been his purpose to indicate that the rite was indispensably
necessary to obtaining a part in the new Messianic kingdom;
for he said expressly that God could raise up from the very
stones children unto Abraham, and therefore that no external
advantage would afford a claim to the expected salvation.
But, what object he had in view by his baptism, what signification he assigned to it, he himself explains when he calls it a
" baptism of repentance (reformation) for the forgiveness of
sins" (Mark 1: 4., Luke 3: 3.). By "baptism of reformation" is meant a baptism which has reference to reformation,
which enjoins reformation (change of mind and of aims in life)
as a duty upon its recipient. The object of the baptism, the
end to be attained, is the forgiveness of sins; and this is conditional upon a true reformation of character in him to whom
the rite is administered.
Repentance was, as we have seen, a necessary condition with




122                 JOHNNS BAPTISM.
John for entrance into the kingdom of God.  In order to
make the reality of this repentance, that is, of the renunciation
of sins of'every kind, visible, and at the same time to give it
a seal, those who actually vowed repentance and gave external
proof of their change of mind by a confession of their sins
(Mark 1: 5.) and an assurance of their penitence, he immersed, or inundated with water, probably with his own
hands,-for he remained continually in the region of the Jordan,-causing them, since they had washed themselves free
from outward filth and defilement, to intimate by the action
that they had also cleansed themselves from all inward impurity, and had come to the resolution to lead henceforth, at
least so far as lay in their power, a life unspotted and free
from every remnant of sin.
The candidates who presented themselves to him for baptism, had to make a confession of their sins as a pre-requisite
to its reception (Matt. 3: 6., Mark 1: 5.). This confession
was an indispensable condition for those who had no consciousness of their sinfulness could not, of course, be expected
to begin a reformation in their life and conduct; and without
this promised reformation the rite could not be administered,
nor could forgiveness of sins be obtained.  The confession
required was to be honest, full, and heartfelt; for all this is
implied in the participle ex:omologoumenoi (i0oio0o7o0YOpevo, confessing out and out, i. e. fully, heartily confessing, cp. Acts
19: 18., Jas. 5: 16.); a complete acknowledgment by the
candidate of the necessity on his part of repentance and
reformation.  The confession may have been summary, respecting the feeling of sin in general; or it may have been
specific, respecting particular acts of transgression.  It is
probable that it was sometimes the former, and sometimes the




JOHN'S BAPTISM.                123
latter; according as in individual cases it seemed best to the
Baptist.
The river in which John performed his baptisms, is the
most celebrated in Palestine. Many interesting associations
cluster around its name.  It is called in Hebrew Yarden
(from yaradh, to flow down); and in Greek lordanes ('Ioo6avcr). The present Arabic designation esh-Sherl'ah signifies
the watering-place.  The remotest perennial source of the
river is a large fountain near Hasbeiya in the valley west
of Mt. Hermon, in about 33~ 25' of north latitude; but it
is usually described (Josephus, Antiq. 15. 10. 3., Bell. Jrud.
1. 21. 3.) as originating in two larger fountains near
Banias (the ancient Paneas or Coesarea-Philippi), in about
latitude 33~ 16', at the south-eastern base of Mt. Hermon.
After flowing some ten miles the river enters lake Hulleh, the
ancient Merom (Josh. 11: 5, 7.), the southern end of which
sheet of water is distant some twelve miles from Banias.
Emerging thence, the stream flows rapidly through a narrow
rocky ravine, about eight miles, to the lake of Tiberias, or
sea of Galilee, into which it empties its waters. This lake is
about twelve miles long andfive or six broad. The Jordan
issues at length from its southern end, and after, flowing
through a valley called after its name (in Arabic, el-Ghbr,
the valley), empties finally into the Dead Sea, in lat. 31~ 46'.
The distance between lake Tiberias and the Dead Sea is a
little over 56 geographical miles; but, on account of its
many windings, the length of the channel of the river between the two points is estimated at more than 150 miles.
Its breadth here is usually from 80 to 100 feet; its depth
generally varies from three to six feet, but in many places
it is considerably greater.




1-24                  JOHN'S BAPTISM.
The valley of the Jordan, lying between the two bodies
of water last mentioned, is in general five or six miles wide;
and it is bordered on all sides by mountains.  "Through this
broad plain," says Robinson (N. T. Lexicon, Art.'Iogo&ti<),
"the Jordan flows in a still deeper valley; which is usually
from 80 to 100 rods wide, and from 40 to 60 feet lower than
the rest of the Gh6r.  In many places there is yet another
slight descent from this lower valley to the actual banks of
the stream, by a strip of alluvial or marshy ground covered
with canes or other vegetation. The course of the river is
skirted by a narrow border of trees and bushes on each side;
never extending beyond the outer banks of the lower valley;
and sometimes confined to the marshy tracts.     The river
rarely, if ever, overflows its banks beyond the border of vegetation; and in no possible case do its inundations rise beyond
the lower valley. The general surface of the Ghbr, above
this lower valley, is therefore a desert; except where watered
by the many fountains which burst forth at the foot of the
mountains on each side.     These  occasion in many parts
luxuriant vegetation and fertility; as for instance around
Jericho." *  Such was the scene of the baptisms administered
by John.
This baptismal ceremony of the forerunner's was so simple,
so consonant with the character of the Jewish people, who
were accustomed to represent purification from internal pollution by an external washing, and so appropriate, that it must
have explained itself on the moment to all, and recommended
* See Robinson, Bibl. Res. vol. 2, p. 257., vol. 3., pp. 307, 347., and in the
Bib. Sacra, 1848, pp. 397, 764. See also a well-written, popular article on
the River Jordan, illustrated with a number of neat engravings, and contributed by Jacob Abbott to Harper's New Monthly Magazine for Sept. 1852




JOHN S BAPTISM.                125
itself with success to every one who had a mind prepared or
willing to comprehend its meaning. —But, what are we to
understand by the expression, "for the forgiveness of sins"?
Did John mean that he had power to grant complete forgiveness of sins by means of this external ceremony? This
cannot be; he could not have presumed to look into the
hearts of men and read therein how far their repentance was
actually sincere; he could not have esteemed this outward action so effectual in its operation that the divine forgiveness
of sins was attendant upon it with no further condition. He
who esteemed Jesus, when he came to him, so much purer than
himself, who declared that he needed to receive baptism at his
hands, must have been but too fully conscious of the fact, that,
even in connection with the best intention and with the firmest
determination to root out and destroy sin, perfect purity of
heart cannot be attained; he must have known well that the
repentance which he required was by no means accompanied
by a forgiveness of sins; for how else could he have wished to
submit himself anew to the baptism of repentance? It must
have been clear to him, a prophet enlightened by God, one
who had searched diligently in the Scriptures, that forgiveness
of sin could be expected only from the Messiah; that he
alone would deliver his adherents from the yoke of guilt and
iniquity, as he would also from external oppression and servitude; and if, therefore, he called his baptism of repentance a
baptism for the remission of sins, he can mean by this only
something like the following:-by repentance we can alone
obtain a portion in the kingdom of God, in which we receive
forgiveness of sins; the seal of repentance, however, is baptism; whoever, therefore, has made known and confirmed his
repentance by this external action, he has a claim to the for



126                  JOHN'S BAPTISM.
giveness of sins which is imparted in the kingdom of God
He promised this forgiveness, therefore, only to those who
came to baptism with a true and upright conviction of what
they were doing, and who in the subsequent period of their
lives remained continually faithful to the vow which they had
made in the act of baptism; and to these he only promised
forgiveness; he did not impart it himself, for he knew that he
himself needed the same.
John's baptism possessed rather a negative and conditional
character, whereas the Messianic baptism of the Holy Spirit
positively imparted a new life —a distinction arising from the
necessary relation of the law to the gospel, and one recognized
by the forerunner himself when he declared that he baptized in
water unto repentance, but that his successor should baptize in
the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3: 11., Luke 3: 16., Jno. 1: 33.).
The rite administered by the Baptist insured forgiveness of
sins indeed to every candidate who truly reformed; but this
forgiveness was to be bestowed at a time yet future, viz., when
Christ should have appeared; whereas the baptism of the
Holy Spirit renewed the soul at once, cleansing it from sin, and
imparting to it the divine life. The rite administered by John,
therefore, was only a baptism of water " unto repentance", not,
like Christ's baptism, a regeneration of water and of the Spirit
(Jno. 3: 5.). It had not the character of an immediate, but
merely of a preparatory consecration for entrance into the
Messianic kingdom (Jno. 1: 31.). For this reason, on those
of the early Christians who had received only the baptism of
John, knowing nothing of that of the Spirit, when re-baptized,
was conferred the true Christian ordinance, according to
apostolic example (Acts 19: 1-7.),* in order that they
* This subject will be more fully discussed when we come to consider the red




JOHN'S BAPTISM.                127
might be prepared to receive the baptism of the Holy
Spirit.
As, then, John's entire ministry was particularly directed
to exciting a spiritual revolution among the people, and to
preparing a way for the Lord by arousing their minds from
the intoxication of sin, so he sought, by means of the rite of
baptism, to confirm this sudden change, and, through the
agency of this external act, to produce an impression the more
deep and the more ineffaceable. But his baptism served at
the same time to quiet and tranquilize such hearts as were
really sorrowful and repentant, such as had been aroused to
the consciousness of their sins and also to a consciousness of
the fearful punishment to which they were exposed;, in so far
as they received in baptism the consolatory assurance that
the coming Redeemer would accept them as his own and forgive them their iniquities. He who wished to obtain this
comforting assurance by the pledge of baptism, hastened
without delay to John' ie, however, who already had this
hope firmly grounded in his soul, and was convinced that
deliverance would come to him without his having received
baptism, felt and really had no pressing necessity for submitting to the ordinance. And those who were actually baptized
formed thereupon no new community, adopted no new mode
of worshipping God, and differed in no respect from their
contemporaries, only as regarded their upright and sincere
repentance, their moral conduct in life, and the joyful expectation of a speedy appearance of the Lord, who would deliver
them corporeally and spiritually; and even in these respects,
they did not differ from all their people, as has been already
lation which existed between John's baptism, that of Christ's disciples, and
the Christian rite.-See Part IV., Chapter 4.




128                 JOHN'S BAPTISM.
remarked, for they differed not from those who, without having
obtained baptism, stood upon a level even with them in piety
and in a hopeful waiting for the advent of the Messiah.
Since John sought at no time to found a new community by
his baptism, since he shows by the expression recorded in
Matt. 3: 9, and Luke 3: 8., that he by no means unconditionally limited reception into the kingdom of God to the descendants of Abraham, it is not surprising that, according to
Luke 3: 12, and 14., he appears not to have excluded from
this ordinance even the heathen (for it is probable that the
publicans and the soldiers were for the most part heathen
Romans) who came to receive the rite. We are authorized
to conclude, however,' that these people bore some special
relation to the Jews as regarded their views of religion;
they were, it is likely, proselytes of the gate, who entertained
a belief in the one true God and had undertaken to observe
the laws of the decalogue, but not the whole ceremonial service and each single religious olservance practised by the
Jews; for had they not been such, they would hardly have
come to John; and John would scarcely have ventured to
baptize persons who were altogether heathens, for such would
not, and could not, have known anything respecting the
Messiah. Proselytes of this kind, with this knowledge and
enlightenment, stood no farther from the kingdom of God
than the children of Abraham; and, therefore, could he,
without hesitation, administer to them, after they had uttered
the vow of repentance, the baptismal rite, and point them to
the coming Redeemer.
Jewish proselytes (Heb. gerim; Greek, proselutoi, nqoajXvro&,
1 Chron. 22: 2., Matt. 23: 15., Acts 2: 10.) were of two
kinds; proselytes of the gate, and proselytes of righteousness,




JOHN'S BAPTISM.                 129
The former class, to Which belonged such as here spoken of,
consisted of converts from heathenism who had renounced
idolatry and worshipped the true God. They bound themselves to the observance of the seven so-called Noachic precepts, viz., against idolatry, profanity, incest, murder, dishonesty, eating blood or things strangled, and allowing a
murderer to live. Josephus (Ant. 14. 17. 2.) calls such
proselytes, of aES6,uevot (sc. io'v 96eov); and so they are denominated in Acts 13: 50., 16: 14., 17: 4. 17., 18: 7. (cp. 13:
43.). The Jews consider Naaman, the Syrian, a proselyte of
this character (2 Kings 5: 17.). Whether Cornelius, the centurion, who is spoken of (Acts 10: 2.) as "one that feared
God" (cfo9o/uyevos Tiov  e6o), was also such, is contested.Proselytes.of righteousness were converts from heathenism
who conformed to all the precepts of the Mosaic law, and
became Israelites in every respect, birth excepted. The rites
by which they were admitted into the Jewish community,
were, originally, circumcision (Exod. 12: 48.) and a free-will
offering (the latter only in the case of women): to these
rites baptism was subsequently added, administered to females
as well as males.
That John, when administering his baptism of repentance,
referred always expressly to the Messiah, whose appearance
was at hand, and made the forgiveness of sins dependent
upon him, is proved to our entire satisfaction by the words
of Paul in Acts 19: 4.: "John verily baptized with the
baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they
should believe on him which should come after him, that is,
[Paul himself adds by way of explanation] on Christ Jesus."
The reference to him that was to come after, is here (especially in the Greek text) placed in such close connection with




130                  JOHN'S BAPTISM.
the act of baptism itself, that we art compelled to believe,
either that John made use of a baptismal formula, as, "I
baptize thee in the name of him that is to come," or, at least,
that he inculcated upon every candidate the truth that his
baptism only served as a preparation for a higher baptism;
that the one was only the external seal of fitness to receive
the application of that other which alone brings with it the
actual forgiveness of sins.
John himself gives utterance to this truth in Matt. 3: 11.,
Mark 1: 7^ 8. and Luke 3: 16., where he calls his own only
a water baptism unto repentance, but that of his great successor a baptism in the Holy Spirit and in fire; where, there
is no doubt, he means to say, that, in comparison with that
higher baptism, the rite which he administered is only an
external baptism, an outward symbol of internal purity and
of an ever-continued feeling of repentance; and for this
reason, therefore, does he call it a baptism unto repentance,
because repentance is not to be completed all at once; but,
since sinfulness and the pollution of sin are never entirely
removed, so also must repentance be of perpetual continuance; and as, therefore, his baptism was, on the one hand,
a seal of repentance already completed, so was it, on the
other, an incitement to repentance ever renewed and ever
continued. The baptism of the Messiah, on the contrary,
would, as he clearly recognized, not only represent externally
this purity, this renunciation of evil, but would itself endue
with a new principle of life, with the divine Spirit, which is
now the principle of lift in us, and, as fire consumes the dross
of metal, destroy in us all the dross of our disposition and the
sinfulness that adheres to our nature. That John saw with
entire correctness in this respect, and had a highly enlightened




JOHN'S BAPTISM.                 131
idea of the milistry of his successor as regards this impartation
of a new element of life, we are especially justified in concluding
from the fact that Christ applies these words of the Baptist to
himself (Acts 1: 5.), and that Peter refers to and repeats the
same (Acts 11: 16.).
The question now arises, whether John thought, in using
these words, of the external rite of Christian baptism; or
only denominated the communication from Christ of a new
divine element of life, baptism, by way of a figure. It is rendered very probable by many reasons that the people expected
a water baptism from the Messiah (compare, especially, Luke
3: 15., the supposition of the people that John was the
Messiah, which seems, according to the answer of the forerunner, to have been based upon his administering baptism;
and, also, the question of the Sanhedrim, Jno. 1: 25., as to
his authority to baptize, if he were not the Messiah); and
this expectation was founded upon the great ceremony of
purification performed on Mt. Sinai (Exod. 19: 10. 14.),
typically conceived, and upon such expressions in the prophets
as Ezek. 36: 25., 37: 23., Zech. 13: 1., etc. It is quite possible that John took advantage of this expectation, applying it
to himself, in order that he, as the forerunner and preparer of
the way of the Lord, might himself introduce this baptism;
by which means this rite of purification would be performed,
not by Christ himself, but, as would be more in accordance
with his high dignity, by his servants; from which, however,
it must not be inferred that the ceremony was an arbitrary
human institution, introduced by John, for it was, in.fact, as
we have seen, commanded by God himself (Jno. 1: 33.). But,
that John expected that the Messial would administer a water
baptism with his own hands, does not appear to be justified by




132                  JOHN'S BAPTISM.
the expression under consideration. He would not, it is quite
certain, lave instituted a comparison between his own water
baptism and the spirit baptism of Christ, if he had conceived
of this latter as itself outwardly symbolized, as it is in fact by
a water baptism; he would not have contrasted the form of
his rite with the operation, or effects, of the rite to be administered as Christian baptism; but, noting the similarity of the
form of the two, he would have exhibited, by way of contrast, so much the more pointedly'the difference between their
inward operation upon the heart. This, rather, was the idea
entertained and expressed by John, that, as he immersed men
in water, in order to represent thereby their repentance, so the
Messiah would immerse them in the Holy Spirit, and therefore
fill them wholly with the divine Spirit, since this alone, moving
and working in man, can induce him to act as becomes a citizen of the new celestial kingdom.
It is evident that the Baptist does not speak here of the
Holy Spirit which is imparted to believing Christians; for
John knew nothing of this Spirit; just as his disciples also,
even after his death, knew naught of such an existence (Acts
19: 1. ss.). This Spirit had not yet appeared (Jno. 7: 39.),
the Spirit of the Father reconciled to us through the Son; the
Spirit of the Mediator himself which dwells. in us continually,
speaks in our behalf to the Father (Rom. 8: 26.) and brings
us into continual communication with God; the Spirit which
is diffused through the whole church, lives and works in it, and
makes us even here participators in eternal happiness; the
Holy Spirit which only a Christian can know, who has felt and
experienced its presence within his soul. John and all the
pious men who lived before and in his age knew the Holy
Spirit only as a vital energy imparted by God, which excited




JOHN'S BAPTISM.                133
the natural capacities, and in a certain degree enlightened
them, and urged them on to repentance and improvement. In
their view the Holy Spirit was always only a power coming
from God, which is imparted unto men, for the most part
merely for the moment; not God himself remaining and dwelling in us; only an effluence of the general divine existence,
which is far elevated above men, not the Spirit of the Father
reconciled to us by the death of his Son. We perceive, therefore, that high as John's expectations regarding the kingdom
of the Messiah reached,-inasmuch as he supposed that participation in its enjoyments would be accompanied by the impartation and complete and full possession of that divine vital
energy,-he yet was far removed, in this expectation, from the
true conception of what Christianity actually afforded to its
recipients; for, to the idea of the continued indwelling within
us of the Holy Spirit, understood and believed in the Christian sense, he could never, independently of Christianity, have
possibly attained.
There is some doubt as to what John meant by the word
"fire," which is added in Matt. 3: 11, and in Luke 3: 16,
to the representation: "he shall baptize you in the Holy
Ghost and in fire."  The most natural and first-suggested explanation seems to be, that fire baptism is here contrasted with
water baptism; it would seem as though nothing further is
added to the idea than what is already contained in the notion
of a spirit baptism, the Spirit being merely compared to a fire
which purifies and enkindles a new life, in order to bring more
prominently into view the contrast between the baptism of the
Spirit and that of John. But if this were the sense of the
passage, we might naturally expect that John would have
expressly presented this opposition by the arrangement of his




131t                JOHNS BAPTISM.
words; he would, therefore, have mentioned the baptism of
fire first, and then have subjoined, by way of explanation,
the baptism of the Spirit. The altogether contrary arrangement which here presents itself, entirely excludes this mode
of explaining the expression; unless, indeed, it afterwards
occurred to the mind of the forerunner to denominate the
spirit baptism of Christ a baptism of fire, in order to describe
more perfectly and to express more pointedly the contrast
between it and the water baptism  which he administered.
But this explanation is directly opposed by the fact, that,
both in the preceding and in the following verses of the
narrative in Matthew and Luke, we find the word "fire"
used in a totally different sense, it being always mentioned as
a fire that shall consume and destroy the unbelieving, and not
as a purifying and cleansing element. It appears that this
signification must be firmly retained in the present passage
also; and we must suppose, accordingly, that John announced
a two-fold baptism of Christ; the one, a baptism of the Holy
Spirit, only for his disciples and companions in the heavenly
kingdom; the other, a baptism of destructive and consuming
fire (naturally, a picturesque or figurative expression), for the
enemies and hardened sinners whom he will exterminate and
destroy. That this is here the true meaning, we perceive
from the explanation which he immediately assigns, and
which we have already considered in the previous section;
where he goes on to describe the separation of the bad from
the good, as it was to take place on the coming of Christ, and
where also he represents the Messiah as utterly exterminating
the unworthy portion of the people, just as Malachi announces the angel of the covenant as'making his appearance
with consuming fire.




JOHN'S BAPTISM.                135
It is contended, after Chrysostom, by most of the Catholic
and by some respectable Protestant commentators (as Beza,
Calvin: and, in more modern times, Stolz, Eichhorn, Olshausen,
etc.) that, since fire is used in other places of the Scriptures
to denote divine influences, the baptism in fire here spoken of
refers to the transfiguring and purifying power of the Holy
Spirit. But this explanation, as well as that which interprets
the phrase of the tongues of fire spoked of in Acts 2: 3., is,
on critical grounds, quite inadmissible; and is rejected, after
Origen and Basil, almost unanimously by the critics of the
present century (as Kuinoel, Alford, Neander, Meyer, De
Wette, etc.). Neander gives a fair idea of the meaning of the
passage in which the expression occurs (Life of Jesus, ~ 39)
"He [the Messiah] it was that should baptize them with the
Holy Spirit and with fire; that is to say, that as his (John's)
followers were entirely immersed in the water, so the Messiah
would immerse the souls of believers in the Holy Spirit,
imparted by himself; so that it should thoroughly penetrate
their being, and form within them a new principle of life.
But this spirit baptism was to be accompanied by a baptism.
of fire. Those who refused to be penetrated by the Spirit of
the divine life, should be destroyed by the fire of the divine
judgments. The'sifting' by fire ever goes along with the
advance of the Spirit, and consumes all who will not appropriate the latter."
That this is the correct and indeed only tenable explanation which can be given to the expression, will be shown by an
examination of the passage as it occurs in the evangelists. In
Mark and John (1: 33.) the words and with fire are wholly
wanting; and so also is the explanatory representation which
immediately follows in Matthew and Luke (cp. Acts I: 5.).




130                 JOHN'S BAPTISM.
Here we have the key which unlocks the difficulty. The
representation in question is the simile or comparison explained in the previous section. We perceive in this that
a discrimination is to be made between the substances lying
on the "threshing floor", after the operations of threshing and
winnowing have been completed: the wheat is to be stored
away in a granary; but the chaff is to be consumed. Now,
by universal interpretation, the storing away of the wheat
corresponds to the baptism in the Holy Spirit: the burning of
the chaff, therefore, nuist, according to a just criticism, correspond to the baptism in fire.
The baptism in fire, then, refers to the destruction of those
who, under the Messianic government, should refuse to receive
the baptism of the Holy Spirit, those who should oppose
themselves to the reign of the Messiah. The "unquenchable
fire" spoken of, may indeed, as Meyer thinks, be meant to
represent the fire of eternal punishment -in Gehenna; but
neither the meaning of the expression nor the tenor of the
passage demands such a reference. On the contrary, the
simile would rather indicate an extermination of the unbelievi.g and opposing from  the earthly kingdom  of the
expected Messiah. Such is the view of Neander, De Wette,
Baumgarten-Crusius, etc.
We come, therefore, here also, to the same results respecting the Messianic expectations which we have already obtained in the historical representation of the formation of his
character: that, namely, with the highest and most spiritual
ideas of the kingdom ot God,-his conception of the baptism
of the Holy Spirit being one of them,-he united yet other
earthly and material notions respecting a worldly and external dominion of the Messiah, as he does here respecting the




JOHN'S BAPTISM.                        137
destruction of sinners; and we perceive here also, that he
was by no means in a condition,-as at that time, indeed, he
could   not possibly   have been,-to separate and distinguish
from each other the first and the second appearance of the
Lord.
NOTE.-John's baptism is briefly but justly described by Taylor, (L. C. ~ 9.
1.) as "a ceremonious consignation of the doctrine of repentance, which was
one great part of the covenant evangelical, and was a divine institution. The
susception of it was in order to the' fulfillinig all righteousness': it was a sign
of humility: the persons baptized confessed their sins: it was a sacramental
disposing to the baptism and faith of Christ."-The Forerunner preached " a
baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins"; and every true penitent
whom he baptized received, no doubt, the pardon of his iniquity. The right
to grant " remission of sins" is, indeed, the prerogative of the Messiah, and
their forgiveness is the distinguishing characteristic of the Mlessianic times;
yet was sin also pardoned under the 0. T. dispensation, on the manifestation of
repentance. Repentance and faith in God were made the only conditions of
forgiveness. This "remission of sins,"-which, however, was not visibly
secured until the atonement was actually made and fully completed; and,
hence, was, even when John began to baptize, to be outwardly and visibly
"bestowed at a time yet future," (v. p. 126),-is the distinguishing doctrine of the Christian religion, as revealed in the Old as well as the New Testament. In the former, it is announced rather in " types and shadows "; in
the latter, it is openly and plainly proclaimed and exhibited in the atoning
sufferings of the Messiah; for, as Horne well remarks in his " Considerations"
(~ 2.), " the doctrine of salvation' by the remission of sins,' through faith in a
Redeemer, was, from the beginning, the sum and substance of true religion,
which subsisted in promise, prophecy, and figure, till John preached their
accomplishment in tle person of Jesus."
Huxtable opposes the view that the phrase " for the remission of sins," as
applied to John's baptism, refers to a forgiveness " afterwards to be received
from the Christ"; and thinks that the results of the repentance required by
him, "are most naturally conceived as immediate rather than prospective."' The Jews were as yet dealt with," says he (Ministry, p. 22.), " according
to the principles of the 0. T. revelation; and according to these, forgiveness
had ever been promised upon the simple condition of repentance."




138   EFFECTS OF JOHN'S MINISTRY AMONG THE PEOPLE.
CHAPTER III.
EFFECTS OF THE MINISTRY OF JOHN AMONG THE PEOPLE.
AN appearance so new and striking as that of John, could
not long have remained unobserved by the people; the multitude had always exhibited special honor for the prophets,
whose whole exterior air and conduct, their rigid abstinence,
their wretched raiment and rugged mode of life, their bold
language, regardless of consequences, and the pointedness of
their addresses, could not have failed to make a deep impression upon the minds of the nation at large. In a time so
stirring as that in which John commenced his ministry, when
the expectation of a new and significant Vera of the theocracy was so general and so deeply rooted, when, on this very
account, every circumstance of an unusual nature must have
produced great excitement, it was entirely consonant with the
order of things that even the first appearance of the Baptist
should produce an immense concourse of the people. His
advent was truly national; the remembrance of the old time
when the prophets lived and acted, was awakened; a desire for
something else, for something better, was preyalent among the
greater part of the people, and, therefore, they were eager to
visit and examine into' whatever promised to contribute to
the introduction of a better and happier epoch.
John entered upon the prosecution of his labors in the
populous and much-visited region of the Jordan, near the
Dead Sea, preaching at first, it is probable, only to individuals
and to families, whom he met there; but the report of him




EFFECTS OF JOHN'S MINISTRY AMONG THE PEOPLE.  139
must have soon spread farther into the circumjacent cities,
and have brought to him the inquisitive of every class. His
preaching and his new ceremony of baptism drew others to
him from a distance more removed; and so we read, in the
beginning of the history, in Matt. 3: 5, and Mark 1: 5.,
that all the citizens of Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the inhabitants of the region round about the Jordan, came flocking
to him from their respective abodes. Though we are, as is
natural, not to understand this according to the strict letter, as
representing thatono individual was left behind, the expression
yet indicates clearly that the great mass of the people and by
far the greater part of the inhabitants of the country round
about Jordan came to him; ana we may well conceive that,
when the new appearance was made generally known among
the people, and had obtained considerable renown, but few, if
any, would have remained content without beholding the forerunner. All must have visited the wonderful man and observed his conduct for themselves, were it only in order to
become able to converse about him, to conform to the prevailing fashion; eacl, in order that he might not be the only
one who knew nothing from personal knowledge of that which
was throwing the whole surrounding country into excitement.
That, therefore, the multitude which flocked to see John was
quite as great as it is represented, is altogether credible and
easily explained. But, the question is, in what state of mind
did the most of these people come unto John, and what impression
did they carry away on their departure?
That many, very many, if not driven to him by the necessity of their hearts, yet overcome by his preaching, actually
exercised repentance, and applied themselves diligently to producing a change i; their disposition, is rendered certain by




140   EFFECTS OF JOHN'S MINISTRY AMONG THE PEOPLE.
the question which, according to Luke 3: 10. if., so many
people of different classes put to the Baptist, "What shall we
do then?" From this it appears evident that they really intended to perform the injunctions of John; and therefore they
asked his counsel as to the manner in which they could best
exhibit their repentant frame of mind. What he required of
them was not, as we have elsewhere seen, difficult of performance, no rigorous abstemiousness, no painful ascetic practice,and in this we must, as has been previously remarked, wonder
so much the more at his wisdom, because one must naturally
have expected from him, the stern ascetic, that he would require all to adopt a similar mode of life,-but the renunciation.
of such sins as were most cordially cherished by each class of
the inquirers; and this, if they were truly serious in their repentance, they could easily perform. We may, therefore, take
it for granted that many, and especially those who found themselves sunk deepest in the mire and pollution of sin, wrought
upon by his solemn preaching of repentance and alarmed by
the threat of approaching judgment, busied themselves seriously with the work of conversion and reformation.
Many others, on the contrary, who perhaps had only come
to him from curiosity and in company with the multitude, and
who, moreover, overcome for the moment by his preaching, had
actually vowed repentance and suffered themselves to receive
in baptism the seal of their earnest striving after repentance
and moral improvement, might, perhaps, have preserved within
them, at the beginning, the impression of this occurrence and
their good resolutions; but the natural inclinations and desires
of their hearts were not so entirely repressed as to allow us to
conclude that the'remembrance of what they had experienced
had a lasting influence upon their minds and conduct. The




EFFECTS OF JOHN'S MINISTRY AMONG THE PEOPLE.  141
great mass of the people who came to him very soon forgot
in their practice his teachings and his threats, though they did
not cease on that account to honor him as a prophet sent from
God; for we perceive from Matt. 14. 5. (cp. Matt. 21: 26.,
Mark 11: 32.) that John was regarded in this light by the
people at large, in which passage the Pharisees are represented as fearing to say anything against the Baptist, because
the people in general looked upon him as a prophet, and, therefore, also, as we learn from the context of the same passage,
considered his baptism a divine institution. All this, however,
could not prevent his ministry from being productive, in most
instances; of no abiding conversion. Were not this the case;
had, on the contrary, this entire multitude which is represented
as having hastened with eagerness to his presence, believed in
his words, and conducted themselves in accordance with his
commands, how could it have been possible that Christ should
not have been joyfully hailed from all sides as the Messiah and
as the deliverer from sin, and that all should not have turned
to him in the exercise of their repentant feelings; and how
could it have been necessary for.the Messiah himself in the
very beginning of his ministry to preach so constantly the
strictest repentance and to rebuke and threaten with punishment the sins which were then prevalent among the nation?
From the treatment which Christ met with at the hands of the
people, who, on one day, cried " Hosanna!" before him, strewed
palm-branches in his way and spread their garments beneath
his feet, and yet, on the next, cried with united voice, " crucify
him, crucify him!" we may ascertain with sufficient clearness in
what estimation we ought to hold their enthusiasm for John;
and how in his case their fickleness must have manifested itseA
in their speedy forgetfulness of their vows, as it did in the case




142   EFFECTS OF JOHN'S MINISTRY AMONG THE PEOPLE.
of Jesus by their rapid transition from the warmest zeal in his
behalf to the most destructive hate.
The people, moreover, were inclined to consider the Baptist
himself the Messiah (Luke 3: 15.. As the expectation of
his coming was very generally spread among the nation, the
over-excitable and credulous part of the people would be inclined to find him in every thing strange which met their sight;
and as John appeared in the guise of the old prophets, while
the Messiah was also frequently represented as a prophet and
teacher of the people in the ancient prophecies, especially in
the prophecy of Moses; and since, moreover, a ceremony of
purification was also probably expected to be performed by
the Messiah, they could scarcely help concluding that in John
they had found the promised Christ. Because he separated
himself outwardly from all other men, and because he rebuked
with a severity regardless of consequences the faults of the
people, even of the most distinguished, it was looked upon as
an indication amounting to proof, that he would also oppose
himself to -their external rulers and oppressors and nowhere
suffer injustice or tyranny -and this thought must naturally
have greatly encouraged the earthly hopes of the people.
John, however, gave them that noble answer which has already
been considered in another connection; he baptized only in
water, but he who was to come after him, the latchet of whose
shoes he was not worthy to loose, for whom he was not worthy
to perform the most menial offices, he was to baptize in the
Spirit and in fire. He points here most distinctly to one infinitely higher than himself, whom they should expect, one who
would bring unto them altogether different blessings and appear among them with an altogether different power from that
which he possessed; and who, as John.lrther shows in the




EFFECTS OF JOHN'S MINISTRY AMONG THE PEOPLE.  143
parable of the farmer with his winnowing-shovel, would make
a distinct separation between the good and the bad, the just and
the unjust, conferring upon the former eternal life, but inflicting
upon the latter destruction as the punishment of their sins.
To represent himself as the Messiah to the people, who
were ready to receive him as such,-a course which vanity
might have prompted him to follow,-was a part which the
Baptist disdained to act, preferring to yield implicit obedience
to the divine call, which had conferred upon him the office'of
a forerunner and nothing more, and, in his modesty, announcing
himself as the most menial servant of him whom God had appointed his successor. "The great, the god-like feature of his
character,?' says Neander (Life of Jesus, ~ 38), "was his thorough understanding of himself and his calling. Filled as he
was with enthusiasm, he yet felt that he was but the humble
instrument of the divine Spirit, called, not to found the new
creation, but to proclaim it; nor did the thronging of'eager
thousands to hang upon his lips, nor the enthusiastic love of
his own immediate followers, ever ready to glorify their master,
in the least degree blind his perceptions of duty, or raise him
above his calling. Convinced that he was inspired of God to
prepare, and not to create, he never pretended to work miracles (Jno. 10: 41.), nor did his disciples, strongly as he impressed them, ever attribute miraculous powers to him."
John appears to have made frequent use of the expression
" whose shoe-latchet I am unworthy to unloose," and to have given
it as a constant reply to all those who wished to assign to him
a higher office than that which he was called to undertake.
At least, we find precisely the same expression in his answer to
the question put to him by the Sanhedrim (Jno. 1: 26. ), and
which was urged by that body after Jesus had been baptized,




144   EFFECTS OF JOHN'S MINISTRY AMONG THE PEOPLE.
though he had not as yet entered upon his public ministry.The relation which these leading men in the state bore to the
Baptist, it will be well to examine here with some attention.
Since John commenced his labors altogether in the manner
of the ancient prophetism, practising a rigidly ascetic life and
presenting an unusual and striking appearance, and since he
announced the near approach of the Messiah, whose kingdom
he, with all his enlightenment, both conceived to himself and
proclaimed to the people as earthly as well as spiritual in its
nature, the Pharisees and their associates supposed that they
had found in him the man whom they needed, who would enter
into their ambitious plans'and make common cause with them,
in order to make sure forthwith of the expected Messiah, and,
by his means, to attain that respect, power and authority which
formed in them the main object of their efforts and their existence. That they must renounce their sins in order to attain
this end, did not occur to them; or rather they had succeeded
in persuading themselves that they were without sin; and
therefore hey entertained not a doubt but that they, as descendants of Abraham, would have in their own right an
inheritance in the Messianic kingdom. Their only care now
was to make sure that they should be invested with the highest
honors in this kingdom. At first, they allowed John to follow
his own course without bringing him to account for his ministry; nay, they even went so far as to go out to him in person
(Matt. 3: 7.), Pharisees as well as Sadducees, in order to
bring him into friendly connection with themselves. The
Sadducees, although they ridiculed what they deemed the
superstition of the people, and through their love of worldly
pleasure had become dead as to all that was heavenly, yet
sought to promote their own advantage by means of a man




EFFECTS OF JOHN'S MINISTRY AMONG THE PEOPLE.  145
so influential as was the Baptist, and therefore endeavored
to secure his friendship.
But, what answer did John give to both parties? Did he
fall in with their ambitious plans? By no means; but, on the
contrary, he holds up their sins before their eyes, reproves
them in the presence of all the people, threatens them with
exclusion from the Messianic kingdom, in case they were not
converted and turned not to repentance (Matt. 3: 7-10.), in
words of the severest and most positive character, and utterly
casts to the ground all their hopes of making him an instrument for accomplishing their purposes. Perhaps they came
to him frequently, and sought to bind him to their interest
with all their arts of cunning; but every time with the same
result. Yet they did not dare to call him to account, because
the respect which the people had for him forbade such a procedure; and in this way John was enabled to continue laboring for' some time among the nation without any hindrance
being offered on their part. But at last he became too dangerous, his influence among the people increased more and
more every day and threw that of others into the shade; nay,
he even took advantage of the hold which he had on the feelings of the nation and made use of it to degrade the Pharisees
and their friends in their estimation, and to expose their falsehood and hypocrisy. Voices were heard among the nation
speaking of him as the Messiah; and, although John distinctly
disclaimed all right to this high dignity, yet must the members
of the Sanhedrim, judging him from their knowledge of their
own hearts, have feared that the Baptist would not long resist
this enticement; and from such a Messiah, they well knew,
they had every thing to fear. Threatened, therefore, in their
very existence, they resolved to venture their last move, to




146    EFFECTS OF JOHN'S MINISTRY AMONG THE PEOPLE.
bring him to account for his conduct, and, if he could not
prove that he was acting under divine authority, to prevent
him from  proceeding in his ministerial labors, and to make
him as much as possible an object of suspicion among the
people.
Accordingly we read in Jno. 1: 19. that the Jews, that is,
the representatives of the Jewish people, the members of the
Sanhedrim,* sent to him priests and Levites, therefore a deputation of the whole clergy of the State, to Bethany (Bethabara, in the ordinary text) on the farther side of the Jordan,
where John was then exercising his ministry.  This deputation
belonged, as we are informed expressly (v. 24.), to the sect of
the Pharisees, and therefore to those who were most strongly
interested in establishing an influence among the people, and in
reducing, in every possible manner, the authority of the Baptist.  Christ himself refers at a subsequent period to this
embassy to John (Jno. 5: 33.).     The Sanhedrim, beyond a
doubt, had the right to bring John to such an examination;
for it was the office of that body to be on the watch and prevent any false prophet from deceiving the people; and therefore every prophet had to prove to them, either by a miracle
or by some special evidence of a divine call, that he had a
right to perform his ministry; and if he could not produce
such proof, he was forbidden to prosecute further the labors of
his office (cp. Matt. 21: 23.).
* Throughout John's Gospel, the expression "the Jews" (oi'Iovdaiot) is
used to designate the party which made opposition to the Son of God. The
appellation usually means, as here, the Sanhedrim, or representatives of the
people, an assembly of seventy-two persons, composed of chief przests, elders,
and scribes or Pharisees, which had the superintendence in matters of religion
and law in Jerusalem.




EFFECTS OF JOHNIS MINISTRY AMONG THE PEOPLE.  147
To the question, who he is, John answers freely and candidly
that he is not the Messiah (v. 20.); and so too he refuses the
other titles of honor which the deputation would have conferred upon him, as not of right belonging to him (vs. 21, 22.),
and gives them finally, when they insist upon a positive explanation, no other answer than what had already long since been
said by the prophet Isaiah (40: 3.): he is " the voice of one
crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord,
make straight in the desert a highway for our God" (v. 23.).
Such an appeal to this passage was new to them; in all their
study of the Scriptures they had certainly never learned to interpret the expression in such a manner, and to find in it an
announcement of a forerunner of the Messiah. At any rate,
they seem to have been unable to urge against' it any serious
objection; yet they were not willing to let John escape so
easily. They asked him, therefore, what right he had to baptize
(v. 25.); for, even admitting that he was the forerunner of
the Messiah, he had not, they thought, acquired on that account the right to introduce a new ceremony. A baptism administered by the Messiah himself they would, perhaps, have
allowed to pass unquestioned; nay, they even expected, it is
probable, that baptism would be performed in his name, not,
however, by him in person, but by some prophet.
The Baptist replies briefly and laconically, but with sufficient precision, that he baptizes only in water; as his whole
ministry is preparatory, his baptism is also preparatory, as he
had previously and frequently declared that it was the Messiah
who was to baptize in the Holy Spirit.-And now, in order to
do away once for all with further questions and inquiries respecting his ministry, he gives to them a sign by which they
might shortly discover whether he had a right to exercise his




148   EFFECTS OF JOHN'S MINISTRY AMONG THE PEOPLE.
office or not; for he proclaims to them with the most confident
assurance, that the Messiah, his great successor, is standing
even now in their midst, and therefore will speedily make himself known and will bear witness both for him and for himself.
John had then already baptized Jesus; he knew that in a
short time he would come forth in public as the Messiah, and
he could therefore appeal with the greatest confidence to his
approaching appearance (vs. 26, 27.). The Pharisees, however, had to wait for the fulfillment of his assertion; and could
undertake nothing further against him, if he proved himself,
by the result of his prophecy, to stand in a specially near relation to God. At a later period, when Christ had actually
appeared in public, when all the people hastened to him in
crowds, the Sanhedrim had to struggle against a yet more
dangerous enemy, on whose destruction they had to risk their
all; at this period they let John pass unattacked, and soon
thereafter his career came to an end.
If now we bring together and view at once the consequences
of the. ministry of John, we shall find that he roused against
himself the opposition of the Pharisees and of those who clung
most firmly to their sins, and found a hearty reception among
only a very few of them, and only among such as were Pharisees merely in name and not in conduct (Luke 7: 29.); that,
however, his reputation was spread widely and fixed firmly
among the people, that all honored and commended him as a
prophet, and many were'led by his repeated exhortations to
repentance and to a better mode of life. The great mass,
it must be confessed, rested cotennt with outwardly honoring
him, and with taking the vow of repentance, without seriously
and faithfully fulfilling it; but yet it was a fact of great importance and full of significance for the time, that by means




EFFECTS OF JOIHNS MINISTRY AMONG THE PEOPLE.              1 49
of the preaching of the Baptist the expectation of a deliverer
was extended more widely than it had ever been before; and
all the people entertained at least this expectation, that his
kingdom   would be not merely an earthly one, but in its main
features spiritual, in which no one could obtain citizenship except by possessing a pious, God-fearing disposition, and by true
repentance of heart; so that Christ, when he came, had a
foundation in some respects already prepared, from         which he
could enter upon the ministry and upon which he could build
his church.*
* The impression produced by John was remarkable. The people "went
out into the wilderness" in crowds; and, professing repentance, received baptism at his hands. Not only their religious sentiments, but their more worldly
passions, were aroused; for, as Huxtable remarks (3linistry, p. 29.), "the
prospect of the speedy appearance of the great Deliverer of their nation, kept
back only by their sins, was calculated to stimulate their minds to an apparent
ardour of reformation, far exceeding what would be produced by the genuine
impulses of conscience and piety." The people seemed, accordingly, to have
suddenly become devout.
Bishop Horne presents us with a picturesque, but rather over-wrought, description of the effects produced among the people by the preaching of the Baptist. It may be found in the fifth section of his "Considerations on the Life
and Death of John the Baptist " (Am. ed. pp. 494. 495.): " Jews and Gentiles,
Pharisees and Publicans, Sadducees and Soldiers, all confess their sins, and
partake of the same baptism; all struck with apprehensions of some impending evil, all flying from the wrath to come; forgetting their mutual hostilities and antipathies, and, like the creatures in the days of Noah,, taking
refuge together in the ark. As if the prophecy of Isaiah had now begun to
receive its accomplishment, the publicans, who, before the preaching of John,
were ravenous as evening' wolves', became innocent as the'lamb.' The sol
diers, who had been formerly fierce and cruel as the' lion', became tame and
tractable as the'ox', and submitted their necks to the yoke of the Gospel.
Such of the Pharisees likewise, who, before their baptism, had been venomous
as the' asp'or' cockatrice,' did, by the worthy receiving of this baptism, and
the grace which God gave them, become mild and gentle as the' sucking infant' or' weaned child.'"




150               THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.
CHAPTER IV
THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.
JOHN had fulfilled the first part of his vocation, the preparation of the people for the coming of the Messiah, he had invited them by his preaching to repentance and baptism, and
had referred them to a Redeemer who was soon to appear.
He was, however, charged with another commission, one
which did not indeed supplant and utterly exclude the other,
but which from this time onward became especially prominent;
he, was to bear witness of the Messiah when he should appear
(Jno. 1: 31.). With the evangelist John this seems to have
*been the most important ofce of the Baptist; for in the very
beginning of the introduction to his Gospel (v. 7.), where the
characteristics of the great and universal Light of the world
are exhibited to view, he makes express mention also of the
forerunner of this Light in the following words: "The same
came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men
through him might believe"; and, after adducing the proofs
that Christ and none other is the Light, already made manifest, and the Word come in the flesh, he mentions again in
v. 15., as at the- commencement, the testimony borne by the
Baptist, who had been expressly called by God to bear witness to the Messiah.
In order that John might be prepared to announce with
unshaken confidence and firmness that Jesus was the Messiah,
it was necessary that he should receive assurance by means
of a special sign from heaven, which should also leave behind




THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.             151
it a deep moral impression, that Jesus and no other than he
was the person whom he expected. On this account, the divine indication that was given to him was to the effect that
that person would be the Messiah upon whoml he should see
the Spirit descending and resting (Jno. 1: 33.); and this
information was imparted unto him by a divine revelation,
perhaps in a dream or by a vision. It was natural that this
particular sign should be chosen, because it most precisely expressed that which it was intended to prove. It was meant
to intimate that he who should receive it was endued to the
utmost with the Holy Spirit, and, since the Spirit appeared
abiding on him, that he would partake without interruption
of this divine Spirit; and,-what would be to John either
new information or a confirmation of his previous expectations,-that the Messiah would be no ordinary man, distinguished perhaps, as some others had been, by remarkable
spiritual gifts, but that the Holy Spirit would actually dwell
in him, and that therefore he must be as much God as man.
The sign itself was given to him at the baptism of Jesus. It
could not well have been given on any other occasion; for,
since he was constantly engaged in preaching to the people
who came to him, and in baptizing them, since he did not go
in person to this one or to that one, seeking out individuals,
but all came to him, Jesus must also have come to him in
person, and in such a manner that the attention of the Baptist should be specially and wholly directed to him, and that
he should be particularly engaged with him when the sign
should be exhibited.
The baptismal scene is represented with most details by
Matthew (3: 13-17.); Luke mentions nothing respecting
the baptism itself, but merely speaks of the sign which was




152              THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.
given after the ceremony had been performed: "Now, when
all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also
being baptized, and praying,"-which was a very natural and
probably a universal custom among those who had just received the rite,-" the heaven was opened, etc." (3: 21, 22.)
Mark, on the other hand, gives an account, it is true, of the
baptism (1: 9-11.), but without mentioning the conversation
which had previously taken place between John and Jesus,
which we find recorded only in Matthew. He merely relates
the bare fact, making, however, the account of Matthew somewhat more complete by changing the altogether indefinite
"then" of that evangelist (v. 13.) into the confessedly not
much more definite expression, "in those days" (v. 9.), and
by subjoining the observation that Jesus had come out of
Nazareth. The Son of God appears, therefore, to have passed
his whole time up to this period in that city, in all stillness and
quietness, forming his character from within; distinguished in
particular, however, for nothing else save his righteous behavior and the spirituality which, without a question, was
exhibited even at that day in all the conduct of his life.
Since now he had been assured by the voice of God, that the
time at length had come when he should appear openly as the
Saviour of the world; and since, perhaps, he also knew, in
consequence Df his perfect knowledge of all that had reference
to the completion of his calling, that it was John who, taught
respecting him and his divine dignity by a sign from heaven,
should bear witness for him in the presence of the people, he
left his retirement and repaired to the Baptist at the Jordan,
not only in order to occasion the sending of this sign, but
also,-and this was the second great signification of the baptism of Jesus,-in order to receive, by means of the rite, a




THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.             153
consecration to his cailing, and to distinguish, through this
ceremonial act, the beginning of his public ministry.
Naturally, the baptism  administered by John could not
have had for Jesus the same signification which it had for the
others who received it; for he was already pure, and needed
to take no vow of repentance, nor to have conferred upon him
any seal of that repentance, nor any assurance that his sins
were forgiven.  It was nevertheless entirely accordant with
his humiliation that he, having taken upon himself the form
of sinful flesh, should accomplish in his own person all that it
was incumbent on sinful man to perform. For this reason was
he circumcised; and for this reason did he frequent the festivals and conform to the Jewish temple worship; but confessedly without bending himself to a slavish adherence to every
single precept, as for example, he showed most clearly in the
expression "the Son of Man is lord also of the Sabbath!"
All this was intended only for sinful men; but the Lord, who
through his eternal love to man entered into the entire corn
munity of sinful men, took upon himself the whole yoke of
the law, became in this respect altogether like any other man,
and fulfilled; yet without sin, all the precepts which had been
given for transgressors. He himself said as much to John,
when the latter would have restrained him from receiving baptism at his hands; "for thus it becometh us to fulfill all
righteousness," that is, in consequence of my present condition.  He does not deny, therefore, that baptism  administered to him by John, a man who morally was inferior to
himself, could not be performed on him in the same sense
as it was'upon others; but it was for another reason, because it was consistent with his present circumstances to fulfill
in his own person all the obligations of humanity, that the




154               THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.
Baptist should, as Christ expressed it, "suffer it to be so
now."
It is impossible that our Lord could, as Strauss thinks he
did, have submitted himself to the baptism  of John from a
consciousness of indwelling sinfulness, for how then could he
have afterwards professed himself to pardon sins; neither
could he have done so from a feeling that sin slumbered within
him, and might, therefore, by some means, be aroused into
action (De Wette); nor, finally, could he have sought the
reception of the rite from a conviction of the necessity of purification from internal defilement of any kind whatever. That
there resided in Jesus, on account of his finite nature and his
human organism, an abstract possibility of sinning, can not be
denied; for this possibility is inseparable from humanity, and
this is so far just the state in which our first parents were before their fall: but such a possibility was in the case of
Christ always and of necessity restrained from passing into
action by the inflexible firmness of his immutable will; and,
on this account, it cannot be true, and indeed it is quite inconceivable, that he should have experienced any consciousness of the need of internal purification.
Various opinions are entertained as to the object which
Jesus had in mind when he submitted himself to this baptismal ceremony; in other words, what, when viewed with respect to him, is its intended signification.-It cannot have
been received, as Paulus thinks, as a testimony to zns Messianic
dignity; nor, for the purpose of grounding the faith of others
on him, because baptism, is a symbol of the regeneration of its reczpients (Ammon, Leben.Tesu, I., S. 268.); nor, to indicate that
he was subject to death (Ebrard); nor, to honor by his example
the baptism of John (Kuinoel, Kern); nor, to bind himself to




THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.               155
an observance of the Jewish law (Hloffmann, Krabbe, Osiander);
nor, because he had not represented himself as the Messiah
previously to the descent of the Spirit, but merely as an Is-'raelite who conformled to the divine ordinances (Hess, Kuhn, and
in part Neander); but, as the expression in Matt. 3: 15., "for
thus it becometh us, [viz., you by baptizing me, and I by
receiving the rite at your hands] to fulfill all righteousness,"
would seem to indicate, because he knlew that his baptism by John
was willed by God, in order to inazugurate him formally and
solemnly as the Mlessiah (Neander, Jacobi, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Meyer), and because "it became him, being in the likeness of
sinful flesh, to go through those appointed rites and purifications which belonged to that flesh" (Alford).  This action of
Christ must unquestionably be ranked among those properly
pertaining to his Messianic calling; and the Baptist expressly
testifies to that effect, when he says: "that he should be made
manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing in water"
(Jno. 1: 31.). "It was," as Licke has well remarked, in explanation of this passage, " only by entering into that community which was to be introductory to the Messianic, by attaching himself to the Baptist like any other man, that it became
possible for Christ to reveal himself to the Baptist, and
through him to others."
The baptism which John performed upon Jesus, had however, as we concluded a priori from his sinless nature, an -altogether different signification from that which the same act
possessed when administered to its other recipients.  For all
other candidates this immersion, whether received before or
after that of Christ, constituted a preparatory consecration
to and preparation for the kingdom    of the Messiah; for
Jesus, on the other hand, it was "a direct and immediate con



156              THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.
secration, by means of which he manifested the commencement
of his career as the founder of the new theocracy, which began
at the very moment of his baptism, the initiatory character of
which constituted its general principle and tendency."*  Yet,
whether administered to others or to Christ, this baptism had
the same substantial element; for it marked in each the beginning of a new course of life; but, in the former case, " this
new life was to be received from without through communications from on high; while in Christ it was to consist of a
gradual unfolding from within; in the former, it was to be
receptive-in the latter, productive.  In a word, the baptism
of the members prepared them to receive pardon and salvation;
that of Christ was his consecration to the work of bestowing
those precious gifts."t
While in this occurrence we wonder at the friendliness and
condescension of the Word which was manifest in the flesh,
who becamne, in a yet higher sense, all things, like Paul; to all
men, we cannot fail to observe anew the upright conscientiousness of the Baptist, who expresses himself iil the words, "I
have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?"
What inferences may be drawn from this expression respecting
the acquaintance of John with Jesus, and what relation the
words bear to the testimony given by the Baptist, " I knew
him not," we have already seen in another place.  Here we
have only to remark for the second time that they form incontrovertible proof that such an acquaintance existed between
the two, that John had become convinced of the fact of the
" See Jacobi, in Kitto's Cyclop. of Bib. Literature, A rt. Baptism, in which the
subject of Christ's baptism and that of baptism in general is discussed with
marked ability.
f Neander, Life of Jesus, ~ 42 (5).




THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.             157
high moral purity of Jesus, and had attained to a consciousness how far he stood below him in this respect; and that,
moreover, he speaks out freely and openly his conviction,
confessing before the whole world, that he, the rigid ascetic
who preached repentance to all the people, is himself a sinner,
needs himself a baptism of purification; and this confession
must place him, if not in the estimation of men, yet in the eyes
of God, high above all the arrogant leaders of the people, who
had nothing more important to engage their attention than to
boast of their righteousness before the people and before the
Messiah.
What, however, so conceived, is an expression of the purest
humility, would evidently be merely an example of the lowest
hypocrisy, if we take the position, as some do, that this whole
meeting took place in accordance with a plan previously concerted. It may be said that it was not the intention of Christ
to deceive the people by such an exhibition, but only to have
himself accredited by John as the Messiah; yet even in this
case the question,-which John put in a tone of surprise,-if
he knew beforehand that Christ was coming to him and for
what purpose, was calculated shamefully to deceive the people,
who must have been induced by the mode of the occurrence to
believe that it had all been brought about by the direct
agency of God; and John could not have justified his conduct in representing that the pure and the just had come to
him, the sinner, for baptism. The explanation above alluded
to, therefore, we must pointedly contradict and oppose; for
nothing in the narrative authorizes us in casting such spots
upon a character so noble and so distinguished as that of
John; and, as we have elsewhere seen, we need no further
explanation than that which has been given, in order to




158                 THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.
understand in their whole significance these simple and natu
ral words of the Baptist, and to find them    altogether appropriate in the connection in which they stand.*
Obedient to the will of Jesus, John hereupon admitted him
to baptism.   A longer hesitation would have been unbecoming,
and would not have partaken of the appearance of humility.
The rite was performed, without doubt, altogether in the customary form. We have no reason to suppose that Jesus was
not baptized with reference to the coming of the Messiah
(ElS To'v exdOeYo); only, the confession of sin which usually
preceded the rite, must of course have been omitted.
When Jesus had ascended from the water and had prayed,
John beheld, as he himself informs us (Jno. 1: 32.), the
Spirit descending from heaven, like a' dove, and resting upon
him  whom   he had baptized; he received, therefore, at this
moment, the sign which had been promised to him, so that he
recognized Jesus as the Messiah, and was prepared to bear
witness of him as he had been divinely appointed to do.
It becomes a question whether we have to think here of a
real dove flying down from heaven;-for, that the "li/e a
dove" cannot refer, as some suppose, to the mode of descent,
that is, that the Spirit flew down as a dove flies, is disproved
by the addition made to the account by Luke, "the Holy
Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove " (3: 22.), and
* "Quite erroneous," says Olshausen (on Matt. 3: 13. Note), "is the
notion which assumes that Jesus made his appearance in public according to a
plan which had been minutely calculated and carefully pre-concerted. His
internal life only obeyed the will of his heavenly Father; whatever he inspired
him to do was immediately done by the son. The clearest knowledge of what
he did was, it is true, connected with it; but every calculation, or speculation,
and human plan-making, must here be considered as excluded, inasmuch as all
this makes an inroad on the immediate unity of life in Christ and God."




THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.             159
by the fact, moreover, that the Spirit must have made himself
outwardly visible in some form or other, if John was to
discover that he had actually descended from heaven. The
most important difficulty in the passage is the fact that John
should have recognized, without some additional circumstance, the Spirit in the dove; especially since we find on no
occasion before this, the dove spoken of as the symbol of the
Spirit. There can be no question that the recognition will
seem quite natural, if we take into account the voice which,
according to Matt. 3: 17., proceeded fiom heaven, saying,
" This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
But, there still remains to be solved the difficulty that John,
according to his own account, saw not a real dove, but only
the Spirit like a dove; so that what he saw had indeed the
closest resemblance to a dove, but yet must have been to the
view something different from a dove, which latter would not
have remained sufficiently long upon Jesus; whereas it was to
be for John one of the principal evidences of the Messiah
that the Spirit should descend and abide upon him whom God
would recognize.-There is, moreover, yet another difficulty,
which it is important to explain: John relates (Jno. 1: 32.)
this occurrence to his disciples as something altogether new and
unknown to them; whereas we might pre-suppose that these
disciples,-of whom we shall have to speak more in detail
hereafter,-as they were generally present when he baptized,
were present also on this occasion, and that therefore they
must themselves have beheld the whole miracle. It would, consequently, be remarkable, in case all the people round about had
witnessed the entire occurrence and had heard the voice, that
we have no account of their surprise and excitement on the
occasion; since, in that event, the eyes and thoughts of all




160              THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.
must have been directed towards him of whom so many and so
great things had been predicted.
When urging this and the other difficulties which have been
mentioned, objectors forget that they are all founded on an
uncertain basis; namely, upon the pre-supposition that the disciples as well as a multitude of people were present when the
baptism of Jesus and the divine acknowledgment of his Messiahship took place. Is this supposition, however, necessary?
How can it be proved to be true? John must by this time
have been prosecuting his labors for six months; the first
feeling of curiosity on the part of the people must have
become measurably stilled, and even though large crowds yet
resorted to him, we need not suppose that the press of the
multitude was wholly uninterrupted. Jesus was no doubt able,
since he knew that John would receive at his baptism the
proof of his Messiahship from his Father, to have chosen for
the reception of the rite a time when he was certain to meet
the Baptist alone and unattended by his disciples. To assert
that John's disciples were constantly with him is to assume not
only without proof, but also contrary to positive evidence.
We read in Jno. 1: 35.: "the next day John stood, and two
of his disciples." Here we find that only two of his followers
were with him, and the rest absent: as the others could
remain away from him for some time, so also could these: they
went away with Jesus, and then, at least, was John alone.
Why could not this have frequently happened on previous
occasions?
There is, therefore, a good reason to be assigned in explanation of the fact that John, some time after the miracle had
occurred, related it to his disciples as something unknown to
them and to the people; and as to that which appears to




THE BAPTISAM OF JESUS.           161
some to form an objection to the precise correctness of the
narrative, that, namely, according to his own account, he saw
not a real dove, but the spirit lilke a dove, and that, as Luke
adds, in a bodily form, it is readily and satisfactorily replied,
that he might just as well have seen this supernatural appearance which he could compare to nothing else so aptly as to a
dove, with open bodily eyes as to have been made acquainted,
-as it is often contended he was,-with the truth which it was
necessary he should know, by means of the same apparition
exhibited in a vision. Now, no one will assert that when John
saw the apparition with his corporeal eyes he beheld nothing
else than an ordinary dove; and there is no good reason for
supposing that he could have been made better acquainted in
a vision with the spiritual element which had appeared to him
in a corporeal form, than he could have been in his customary
bodily condition. We are not justified, even where we read in
the Old Testament so frequently of theophanies, or appearances
of God, made unto mortals, in concluding that those to whom
the theophanies were made invariably fell into a trance and
saw in a vision; for when. this was actually the case, it is
expressly mentioned, as for example in Gen. 15: 1.: much
less are we justified in drawing such a conclusion here, in the
New Testament, where we have not the slightest indication
that John, after he had baptized Christ, was thrown into a
state of ecstasy, and while in this condition beheld the apparition. Just the same is the case with regard to the voice from
heaven, which, it will be remembered, was heard again at the
transfiguration of Christ (Matt. 17: 5.) and during the last
conversation which he held with the people (Jno. 12: 28.);
on vwhich occasions the disciples who heard and understood the
voice had not fallen into an ecstasy. And, finally, how inap



162              THE BAPTISMI OF JESUS.
propriate and unsatisfactory to himself would it have been, if
John should have received while in a morbid condition that
sign which was to prepare and induce him to be a witness,
firm, immovable, and consolatory to ill the world, that Jesus
is the Messiah: how easily, at a later period, might the doubt
have arisen within him, whether after all that which he had observed was not the mere play of his heated imagination which
saw just what it wished to see. It was necessary that he
should see and hear all while in a sound and conscious state of
mind, in a mode of view at once clear and natural, and in a
manner that could not be mistaken, in order that he might remain firm and unhesitating in his evidence.
If we take this view of the occurrence and hold, as is most
natural, that the whole apparition was externally perceived,
we do not involve ourselves in the difficulties to which, on any
other supposition, the different accounts of the evangelists
appear to lead. According to. the narrative of Luke it was
John who saw the Spirit descending upon Jesus; according
to Mark, on the other hand, it was Jesus himself; and Matthew leaves it doubtful which of the two, or whether both,
beheld the apparition. If, therefore, we do not take the
ground that the evangelists contradict each other, we must
admit that both observed the appearance. Are we, in consequence, to suppose that both had one and the same vision?
Such is the position which they must take who, while admitting the correctness of all the accounts, contend that the
whole occurrence took place in a vision. But, not reckoning the
improbability that the two should have beheld in their trance
one and the same thing,-since a vision, of whatever nature it
may be, is grounded always upon the subjective character of
the individual, and accordingly must, in this instance as in




THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.            163
others, have appeared differently to the two persons,-it is
altogether impossible to suppose that visions were used as
a means of communicating knowledge to Jesus, without wholly
denying that he possessed perfect and constant information in
virtue of his divinity.
If this view should fail to give satisfaction, it is quite
allowable to offer another explanation; for we may hold that
an external apparition took place indeed, and that in the presence of the people, but that it was intelligible only to these
two divinely-enlightened men; it was indeed a dove externally
which appeared, in which, however, they alone recognized the
Holy Spirit; it was in truth a clap of thunder which was
heard, but they alone understood the voice. If we have
recourse to this view, because not able to free ourselves from
the supposition that John's disciples and the people in general
were present on the occasion, it must nevertheless appear surprising, nay, altogether inexplicable, that with regard to these
extraordinary apparitions, which must have produced not a
little noise and sensation,-for it is by no means a usual
occurrence for a dove to come flying to a man and to settle
upon his head; nor is it more usual for a thunder-clap to be
heard from a serene sky,- that we are nowhere informed
what effect they had upon the people, what they thought of
Jesus, etc.; and it is equally surprising that John does not,
in his subsequent narration of the occurrence to his disciples,
refer to what they themselves had observed at the time, and
explain to them what signification it had with respect to him
that was initiated.-If we suppose, on the other hand, what is
on many accounts most probable, that the people and the
disciples were not present, there is no reason to be assigned
why one thing outwardly and another inwardly should be




164              THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.
exhibited to John and Jesus, externally a dove but internally
the Spirit like a dove, externally the noise of thunder but
internally distinct words from God; why, in fact, that which
it was necessary for them to see, could not have appeared to
them outwardly altogether in such a way as it was necessary
that they should see and hear.
Accordingly, that John could have recognized perfectly the
Spirit of God in the form which externally appeared, we cannot
by any. possibility doubt when we take into consideration the
prophecy which had been given to him'for this very purpose,
the otherwise singular circumstances of this event, his knowledge of Jesus' high moral purity, and above all the explanatory voice from heaven which pertained only to this occurrence.-Provided that we think of only John and Jesus
as being present when this solemn act of consecration took
place, we may conceive of the whole event in a manner
exceedingly simple and satisfactory. The heaven appears to
open (Matt. 3: 16.); evidently a symbol of the communication now and forever opened between earth and heaven: the
Spirit comes down; a symbol of the divine existence now
revealed in Christ (because the Spirit will be perceptible outwardly by human eyes, it takes here a. definite form, just as
God*appears in some particular shape in the Old Testament,
now as fire, now as a cloud of smoke, now in human form,
etc.): in a form which is compared to a dove, because this
would be in the highest degree the representation of the soft
and mild manner of the Spirit which dwelt and operated
in Christ: the Spirit abides upon im; a symbol of the constant and equable operation of the Spirit of God in Christ,
not fitful and interrupted, as in the case of the prophets, but
thoroughly penetrating him and exhibiting itself in all his




THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.             165
conduct. To these we must add, to finish the picture, the
clear and infallible voice from heaven, "this is my beloved
Son," or, as it is most probably reported with more exactness
in the narrative of Mark and Luke as being addressed personally to Christ, "thou art my beloved Son"; from which
words, by relating them indirectly, the form of expression
which appears in Matthew doubtless originated.
Some of the Apocryphal Gospels relate the circumstances
attendant upon the baptism of Christ at greater length than
they are recorded in the New Testament; adding much that
is fabulous to the true accounts, but in such a way that their
connection with the original and trustworthy sources is readily
traceable. The Ebionitish Gospel of the Hebrews, for example, quoted by Epiphanius (30. 13.), inverts the order of the
occurrences, and represents the miraculous appearances as preceding and occasioning John's conduct. According to its
account, a light shines around the place, and a voice addresses
itself first to Jesus and then to John, who thereupon falls at
the feet of Christ. The Spirit, as here described, not only
descends upon but enters into Jesus; expressing still more
strongly than the original the permanent dwelling of the Spirit
in the Messiah. The same idea is made still more prominent
in the Nazarean Gospel of the Hebrews, quoted by Jerome
(Adv. Pelagium, 3. 2.): "All the fountain of the Holy
Spirit, descending and resting upon him, said,'My son, I
awaited thee in all the prophets, that thou mightest come, and
that I might rest in thee. For thou art my abiding-place, thou
art my first-born son, that reignest forever.'"  Here indeed a
fine Christian sense is given, but the historic facts are evidently distorted.
The whole apparition, it is clear, though perceptible to




166              THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.
Christ as well as to John, was notwithstanding given, according to its symbolic character, only to the Baptist for his gratification and instruction. It was intended to convince him that
he whose coming he had anticipated, and for which he was
preparing the way, had at length appeared. He was alone
with Jesus; and the latter could have needed no revelation.
The apparition, therefore, was intended for the Baptist alone:
others needed it not, and them it could benefit only mediately through him, and only then in case they regarded him as
a prophet worthy of credence.-To Christ himself, however,
there was imparted by the apparition no new element of life.
For we cannot admit the supposition that Christ, either before
this occurrence or after it, was either more or less God-man;
but, as from his birth onward he was the Word revealed in the
flesh, so could there, at a later period, nothing be added to
and nothing taken away from his divine nature.-lt seems to
be an inadmissible view to hold that Jesus was at first in
possession of the Holy Spirit only sufficiently far to make
him susceptible df preparation for his calling; but that now
he received the Spirit which was to induce him to.undertake
his external ministry to the world, and to lead him on to his
public activity; as though this susceptibility and this activity
were divided in the Holy Spirit, and as though it were possible
to think that Christ at one time possessed the Spirit only by
halves.
The first three evangelists indeed would seem, by connecting
the history of the baptism with that of his temptation, to insinuate that there was an immediate and direct operation of the
Spirit upon Christ on the occasion of his receiving this ordinance.
This, however, is by no means, a necessary inference from their
representation of the event; for the difference that exists




THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.             167
between their narrative and that of John is mainly owing to
the character of their individual conceptions respecting the
Messiah.  "The former rest their views of him. more on the
Old Testament: he is therefore with them a king and prophet
acting in the name of God, by whom he is anointed with the
Holy Spirit and power (Acts 10: 38.), and becomes manifest
through miracles, and is-finally raised to divine majesty. Not
so the more sublime conception of John in that matter: he
sees in him the incarnated Word (logos), the independent source
of his divine manifestations, to the execution of which he wanted,
it is true, such external calls as present themselves in the relations of practical life, but by no means a new communication of
the Spirit."* The link which connects the two representations
is that doctrine which Paul expresses when he represents Christ
as "the seed of David according to the flesh " but " the Son
of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness"
(Rom. 1: 3, 4.). The evangelists, then, do not at all corn
into contradiction. The first three declare as truly as John
does, the superhuman generation of Christ; only they do not
lay so much stress upon the doctrine as is done by that evangelist, nor do they seem to have comprehended so clearly, or,
we should rather say, so feelingly as he did, the full extent
of its import and significancy.
But, even admitting that the narratives of the first three
evangelists do imply an immediate and direct operation of the
Spirit upon Jesus, it does not at all follow, as Luicke has
shown, that this fact is at variance with his superhuman generation. An examination of John's account of the testimony
of the Baptist, will show now the difficulty may be solved; for
it is quite allowable to infer from the words of that evangelist,
* Jacobi, Cyc. of Bib. Lit., Art. on Ba-tism.




168               THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.
as Liicke does, that he " makes a- decided distinction between
the divine Logos (WTord) in its existence before it was incarnated, and the Spirit.  The former is a person of whom it may
be said'he'was made flesh', but not so of the Spirit, which
stands in contrast to flesh, and constitutes the principle of
communication and manifestation to an already existing person. Jesus, having within himself the Logos, as the divine sabject, was therefore, capable of receiving the everlasting communication of the Spirit.  As man, subject to human, development, he stood in need of an external excitement and animation by God, such as took place at his baptism."*
"The personal Logos," says Alford (Corn. on Jno. 1: 34.),
which oauco  yvero (became flesh) in the Lord, and which was
subjected to all the laws of human development in'infancy,
childhood, youth,-evermore in an especial degree under the
leading of the Holy Spirit by whose agency the incarnation
had taken place,-was in the Lord the recipient (it SEXouEvov)
of this fullness of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost: and
herein consisted the real depth and propriety of the sign;-the
abiding of the Spirit without measizre (ch. 3: 34.) on him indicated beyond doubt that he was the )aoyo; oaod y7eyov6 (Word
become flesh),-for no mere human intelligence could be thus
receptive of the Holy Spirit of God;-we receive him only as
we can, only as far as our receptivity extends,-by measure; but
he into the very fullness and infinite capacities of his divine
being."
Though we hold, however, to this opinion, as the most simple and upon the whole the most satisfactory, that nothing
new, as to being and nature, was conferred upon Jesus by the
* Liicke, Commentar iiber Johannes, I., S. 433. Licke treats this whole
subject with great ability in an Excursus of ten pages (S 433-443.).




THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.              169
descent of the Spirit upon him at his baptism, we are not
obliged to assert, on the other hand, that the event had no
signification whatever for Christ. In the whole of his subsequent life we see Jesus by no means so entirely independent
of the influence of circumstances and events calculated to affect
conduct and character; we see him by no means so completely
locked within himself and so little moved from his repose by
external events, that he was beyond the reach of receiving
various impulses from without which would be of no little
moment to his self-development; we see that he also needed
strengthening in his calling, that he frequently retired into
loneliness in order to pray. This notable occurrence, therefore, must have been, beyond a doubt, a not unimportant event
for his personal preparation as the redeemer of humanity, by
the strengthening of his conviction that he was called to that
office. Hitherto he had lived in constant retirement, developing himself from within himself by means of the influences
which wrought upon him     richly from  without and from
within: unprompted he came to the assurance that he was the
Saviour of men, and that he was called at this time to enter
upon his public ministry. This internal assurance must, however, have attained a much firmer hold upon his conviction by
means of this superadded external attestation on the part of his
heavenly Father; the development of his Messianic consciousness was brought by the same means to an end and sealed;
the symbol of the impartation of the Spirit was the sign that
the divine Spirit had now developed itself in him to its utmost
extent, that he possessed the fullness of the Spirit of God, the
Spirit without measure (Jno. 3: 34.); and, accordingly, his
baptism was for him a divine confirmation that the time had
now come for him to begin his duties as the Messiah, a conse.




170              THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.
oration to his entrance upon this great office; and, at the
same time, a definite act by which he for the first time showed
that he was something higher than that which men had
hitherto regarded him, and that he himself was conscious of
the fact, that, however, he would enter entirely into the weakness of the human race and take upon himself all their duties
in order that he might bring them freedom and salvation. As
such a person he appeared for the first time to John the
Baptist, and obtained in him the first witness to his dignity,
though not his first disciple, as we shall have occasion to
notice hereafter.
With regard, however, to the outward significancy of the
ordinance, it is quite evident, that, as a symbol of internal,
spiritual or moral, purification, baptism could not, as we have
seen, have been performed upon Christ; but as a sign of outward purification, or separation from all common and secular
employments, in order to engage in those which were spiritual,
the rite could not have been irrelevant even when it'was
administered to the sinless Jesus. Viewed in relation to the
work in which he was about to engage, there was connected
with the ordinance a peculiar appropriateness. This view is
happily carried out by Huxtable: Aliinistry, pp.52.53. "Our blessed.
Lord had hitherto passed his life amid secular engagements; for
from the question of the Niazarenes, recorded Mark 6: 3.,'Is
not this the carpenter?', it is clear that he had himself carried
on the business of his reputed father. He had thus, and in
other ways as a fellow-inhabitant of the town, been mingled
with the people of Nazareth in the various engagements of
social life; laboring, and selling and buying, and taking part
in the offices and intercourse of neighborhood. In short, he
had been completely assimilated td his sinful brethren (except




THE BAPTISM   OF JESUS.                   1
in their sins), associated and blended with them. But now he
was about to assume the divine functions of the Lord's Christ;
if we may venture thus to apply the language which St. Paul
has used with reference to his actual death, he was "to die
unto sin that he might live unto God:         (Rom. 6: 10.).     It
therefore seems fitting that such a transition should be accompanied by his passing through a rite which so graphically
expressed purification; in which, in his instance, it was set
forth that he washed himself clean of worldly associations, and
came forth pure and entire as the Christ of God."-A symbol
of such a purification as this the baptism of Jesus might well
have been; and, no doubt, in an indirect manner and by
implication, it was; but, in its main object and import, it was
a rite of inauguration as the Messiah and of consecration to
his theocratic reign.*
* The views of Jeremy Taylor on the significance of our Lord's Baptism, as
given in his "Life of Christ" (~ 9. 1. 2.), are striking; and are worthy of
quotation: " Jesus wanted not a proposition, to consign by his baptism, proportionable enough to the analogy of its institution; for as others professed
their return towards innocence, so he avowed his perseverance in it:.and,
though he was never called in scripture a sinner, yet he was made sin for us;
that is, he did undergo the shame and the punishment; and therefore it was
proper enough for him to perform the sacrament of sinners....... He
was now manifest to Israel; he confirmed the baptism of John; he sanctified
the water to become sacramental and ministerial in the remission of sins; he
by a real event declared that to them who should rightly be baptized the kingdom of heaven should certainly be opened: he inserted himself by that ceremony into the society and participation of holy people, of which communion
himself was head and prince; and he dill, in a symbol, purify human nature,
whose stains and guilt he has undertaken."




1 2        JOHN'S TESTIMONY RESPECTING CHRIST.
PART FOURTH.
JOHN AFTER THE PUBLIC APPEARANCE OF THE MESSIAH.
CHAPTER I.
JOHN'S TESTIMONY RESPECTING CHRIST.
BY means of the revelation which was imparted to John on
the occasion of the baptism of Christ, not only was he, as we
have seen, placed in the condition, but it was made a duty
incumbent on him, to bear distinct and public witness that this
Jesus was the Messiah whom the people had expected, and
whom he himself had constantly announced.   Confessedly,
however, he was not to do this in such a manner as to make it
his sole business to bear testimony that Jesus was the Christ;
nor was he compelled to leave his former employment, and, accompanying the Messiah every where, to give witness respecting him to all the world; nor was it even his duty to tell at
once to all those who came to him from this time onward, that
Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah whom he proclaimed. He
was called, on the contrary, to baptize in water, and to make
ready a way for the Lord, (Jno. 1: 23, 33.), and he could
not.leave this employment until God himself should summon
him away from it. He was commissioned to prepare the people for the coming of the Messiah, and this preparation would
not have been accomplished in the case of very many of them,
if he, instead of exciting within them, as heretofore in general,
more correct expectations than they had previously enter



JOHN S TESTIMONY RESPECTING CHRIST.      173
tained concerning the Messianic kingdom, and making their
hearts susceptible for receiving it when it appeared, had pointed
them immediately to a particular person as the Messiah. It
was his duty, rather, to continue inciting men to repentance
and announcing the near approach of the Messianic kingdom,
until Christ should publicly establish his kingdom, and should
declare before all the people, "I am the Messiah."  Until
such a time, he was to continue to baptize with the baptism of
repentance, and to refer the people to him who should come
after him and who stood already in their midst (Jno. 1: 26.);
and was to announce to oily a few single faithful souls, when
a proper opportunity presented itself, that it was this Jesus
who was soon to appear openly revealed as the Messiah.
Since the Baptist adopted this procedure it could not possibly remain long concealed from the people that he considered
Jesus of Nazareth the Messiah, especially since Christ himself
began from this time to collect disciples, and soon obtained
a considerable number of adherents. It cannot be doubted
that John was from this period asked by many what he who
was even then proclaiming the near appearance of the Messiah
thought of him who was now supposed by others to be the
Anointed; and we cannot hesitate to think that every time
he was so questioned the Baptist returned ever the same
answer, that he was in truth the expected Messiah. In this
way must all the people have gradually become acquainted
with what John said from time to time respecting Jesus; and
that they really did so in general, we see in a manner especially clear from Jno. 10: 41. f., where the adherents of Christ
adduce the truth of the testimony of John respecting him as a
prop for their belief; and from Matt. 21: 25. ff. (cp. Mark 11:
30 ff. Luke 20: 4. if.), where it is necessarily implied in the




174        JOHN'S TESTIMONY RESPECTING  HRIST.
reasoning of the Pharisees,-to the effect that if they admitted
John to be a true prophet, Jesus might reply to them and ask,
why then they had not believed in him,-that they were'fully
aware that John had announced Jesus as the Messiah. Had
they only known that he had borne witness in a general way
that the Messiah had come, they would have been able to
respond to Christ: " he prophesied truly, but he did not say
that you are the Messiah; we look, therefore, for another."
When we examine with some degree of minuteness the single
expressions of John regarding Jesus, we are, in general,
brought to the conclusion that he was a prophet in whom the
Spirit did not' operate in a quiet and uniform manner, as it did
in Christ and the Apostles, but who, though in general standing higher and more enlightened than his contemporaries,
experienced at times special operations of the divine Spirit
within himself which were not vouchsafed to him at other
periods, so that he attained in moments of prophetic inspiration to a clearness and certainty respecting the nature of the
kingdom of God, which in more quiet states of his mind must
have been succeeded by other moments of uncertainty and
doubt. We must, however, hold fast to this, that nothing
that he said even in those periods of inspiration can have been
totally foreign from his character; that his mouth could have
uttered nothing which was unintelligible to himself; but that
all had in his mind a point of connection; that the insight
which he obtained into the Messianic character was elevated
and increased by the divine operation, but that no. idea contradictory of his former'stand-point was ever for a moment entertained or uttered by him.-We Are not, perhaps, possessed
of sufficient data to enable us to decide with certainty as to
what and how far particular expressions of his were the utter



JOHN'S TESTIMONY RESPECTING CHRIST.      175
ance of thoughts which were the consequences of his education
and general habits of conception, or how far they were due,
on the other hand, to special momentary operations of the
divine Spirit. We must remain content, therefore, with showing that every conception which the Baptist uttered respecting the kingdom of the Messiah, is consonant with that idea
of his character which has already been presented.
John seems to have commenced his testimony (Jno. 1: 1934.) immediately after hearing the words which sounded in
thunder from heaven when Jesus was baptized: "This is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."  Speaking of the
ceremony, he says afterward, " And I saw and bare record
that this is the Son of God" (Jno. 1: 34.). Now, what did
the Baptist mean by this appellation? Did he use it only in
that signification according to which kings and judges are and
may rightly be called sons of God, or gods (cp. Ps. 82: 1 6.),
or did he use it in a more exalted sense? That the former
supposition is not correct, but that, on the contrary, he really
saw in Christ a divine being, is evident from the expression
which he had already, as we read in John, applied before this
time to the Messiah and frequently repeated: " After me
cometh a man which is preferred before me; for he was before
me" (1: 30. cp. v. 15.). The intentionally ambiguous expression which John subjoined to the words "cometh a man," viz.,
"is preferred before me" (   i7r oo   lov V eoovse), and which
may be understood just as well of precedence in order of time
as of precedence in rank, is further explained and rendered definite by the addition which succeeds, "for he was before me;"
from which it follows that John, who certainly did not mean
one and the same thing by the two expressions, and who
would not have attempted to prove an assertion by means of a




I 6        JOHNoS TESTIMONY RESPECTING CHRIST.
mere chalnge of words, employed the expression here as indicative of rank, as if he had said "he is my superior", or "he
is greater than I"; and he would thereby intimate distinctly
by the words which follow that he regarded the Messiah
as one who existed before his birth, and, therefore, as an
eternal being. The words were uttered altogether in the
brief and piquant manner of the prophets, who were wont
to express with something of rudeness ideas which were unexpected and contrary to appearances, without subjoining
a prolix explanation. According to customary relations one
would expect that he who follows another has less authority
than he who preceded: here, on the contrary, the successor is
represented as the higher, and that for the unexpected reason
that the successor had already existed previous to his predecessor. In these words, therefore, the Baptist openly gives
testimony to his recognition of a pre-existence, an eternal
existence, of the divine being dwelling in the Messiah; and in
this way greater light is thrown upon those passages in which
John places himself so far below his successor as to assert that
he is not worthy to loose his shoe-latchet, or to perform
for him other menial services (Matt. 3: 11., Mark 1: 7.,
Luke 3: 16., Jno. 1: 27.). He assigned the Messiah a rank
so superior to his own because he recognized in hinm a divine'
personage.
But, how came John by this conception? He clearly could
not have derived it from the words which he heard at Christ's
baptism, because the appellation  " Son of God" there
bestowed might possibly be taken in another and a lower
sense. If we do not resort to a special divine revelation, for
whlich, however, we have no ground in this case, we must refer
his knowledge to a study of the prophecies of the Old Testa



JOHN'S TESTIMONY. RESPECTING CHRIST.     17 
ment, from which a man as enlightened as John could readily
educe the correct idea of the godhead of the Messiah. We
may make mention here of the passages which occur in Ps. 2,
and Ps. 45. (which are certainly to be explained as referring
to the Messiah, for they would not otherwise have been
admitted into the canon of holy songs), in which the great
king whose glory is there celebrated is expressly distinguished
from the highest God, and yet is himself called God. Furthermore, we may refer to Ps. 110. which Christ interpreted
himself, and adduces it as proof of his divinity (Matt. 22:
44.); furthermore, to those predicates, in particular, which
are employed in the description of the Messiah in Is. 9, and
11. and the divine attributes therein assigned; to all those
passages, moreover, in which the Messiah is spoken of as
descended from the Almighty, a person closely connected with
God, and in which eternal dominion and divine judgment are
predicated of him; and, finally, to Micah 5: 2., where the
pre-existence of the Messiah, his eternal existence, is expressly
asserted. Could the meaning of all these prophecies have
remained concealed from so diligent a searcher of the Scriptures, so enlightened a prophet, as we have found John to
have been? Must he not rather have been led by them with
power to the recognition of the divine personality of the
Messiah? Though his ideas respecting the mode of this union
of the divine and the human in Christ were not entirely clear,
yet he was perfectly sure that the connection existed. This
assurance he exhibited and expressed, as we have seen, in all
the rest of his doctrine; and for this. reason we are not compelled to ascribe its rise and duration:o a moment merely of
high prophetic inspiration; though it must not be forgotten
that John, as a prophet, and therefore as an organ of the




178        -OHN's TESTIMONY RESPECTING CHRIST.
Spirit of God, had, when under its influence, an intuitive perception of divine truth.
Apparently in direct contradiction to this recognition of
the godhead of the Messiah, John utters another expression
recorded by the evangelist: "Behold the Lamb of God,
which taketh away the sin of the world" (Jno.: 29.). But
this contradiction is no greater than that of the prophecies
of the Old Testament themselves which represent both attributes of the Messiah in close connection with each other;
nor than that of the appearance of Christ itself, who actually
fulfilled the two opposite and seemingly contradictory prophecies in his life and death. In Is. 53. we find the key and
explanation of this expression of the Baptist's.  That this
passage, whether we take it typically or directly, cannot be
referred to any one else than the Messiah, is now-a-days more
and more acknowledged by biblical critics; and why, then,
may not John also have discovered this reference in it? The
subject there spoken of is a servant of God, who is punished
on account of the sins of the people, and by whose expiation
for sin we have peace; and contains, therefore, the idea of
the Messiah atoning for iniquity. This servant is compared
to a lamb which is brought to be slaughtered, on account of
his mildness and gentleness, and on account of the patience
with which he takes upon himself undeserved sufferings and
tortures. Now, it is related to us here by the evangelist that
John saw Jesus coming to him after he had baptized him and
after Jesus had undergone the forty days' temptation in the
wilderness. The expression of humility, mildness and gentleness which he perceived in the countenance as well as in the
whole person and appearance of Christ, no doubt impressed
the Baptist powerfully and called up in his memory this




JOHN'S TESTIMONY RESPECTING CHRIST.      119
passage in Isaiah, which he without a question referred,
though not with a full understanding of its meaning, to the
Messiah, so that he could not refrain from breaking out in the
words, "Behold the lamb of God (i. e. the Lamb consecrated,
or dedicated, to God) which taketh away the sin of the
world."  This idea, that the Lamb of God, or the Messiah
represented by this metaphor, should bear the sins of men, is
expressed in almost the same words in Is. 53: 11, 12.; and,
that he should bear the iniquities of another can mean, according to the original text, nothing else than that he should take
upon himself the guilt of the sins of another, and therefore
should suffer the punishment which this guilt induced, should
make atonement for sin.
The idea that one person can make expiation for the iniquity
of another, and thus free him from guilt and punishment, an
idea which is not at all foreign to the Old Testament, but
which lies in fact at the foundation of the whole system of
sacrificial worship,-is necessarily to be pre-supposed in order
to understand this expression aright; and in this sense must
the Baptist, if he gave any reflection to the point at all, have
understood it and applied it to Christ. Nor could this conception have leen, as some think, totally foreign from  the
expectations of such among the Jewish people as applied
themselves diligently and earnestly to the study of the Scriptures (cp. Luke 2: 29. if.). They could hardly, as they did,
have applied Is. 53. to the Messiah without deriving therefrom at least a notion that the theoctratic king was to undergo
sufferings and death. Traces of this thought are found in the
early Jewish writings (cp. 2 Mace. 7: 37, 38.); and " the
whole history of the sacrifices and devotion of the heathen
world abounds with examples of the same idea variously




180        JOHN'S TESTIMONY RESPECTING CHRIST.
brought forward; and to these the better informed among
the Jews could be no strangers."  Since he stood so near to
the Messianic reign, his own spiritual vision penetrated yet
farther than that of Isaiah: he saw that the sins, not of
many, as it is expressed in that prophet, but of the whole
world, were to be taken away by the Lamb of God; just as
this idea of the uncircumscribed limits of the sphere of Christ's
operation is indicated in Matt.'3: 9, and Luke 3: 8., and was
not unknown also among the more enlightened of the people,
although among the latter there still lay at the base of their
expectations the belief that the heathen world could and
would attain to a participation in the kingdom of the Messiah
only through the medium of Judaism, and only after it had
received Judaism either wholly or at least partially. To this
fact refer those numerous passages of the Old Testament
wlhich announce a universal turning of the heathen to the
temple and worship of Jehovah.
It has been almost universally held by Christian commentators that this declaration of the Baptist's which has just
been considered, refers to the atoning sufferings, and perhaps
also to the death, of Christ; this view being opposed in
general only by the Socinians and by some among the Arminian school of theology. Certain recent interpreters, however,
influenced chiefly by doubts as to the possibility of the Baptist's having had an insight into the doctrine of the atonement,-the distinguishing doctrine of the iNew Testament,have insisted upon quite' a different explanation. According
to their view the words "behold the Lamb of God which
taketh awray the sin of the world," represent the Messiah as
tatlilihno away the sins of the world (.u'usiv being construed cs
equivalent to remnovere) by his teachzng. The predicate "Lamb




JOHN'S TESTIMONY RESPECTING CHRIST.       181
of God," expresses, they think, the mildness and patience
exhibited by the Son of God in his life and actions.   So
explain  Kuinoel, Paulus, and others.   This explanation,
however, though sufficiently accordant with the- meaning
which airein (oel,) sometimes bears in the New      Testament and most frequently in the Septuagint, does not preserve
the reference to the figure involved in the phrase " the Lamnb
of God," which evidently is based upon the representation in
Is. 53: 7., "he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, etc.,"
and is clearly intended to picture Christ as undergoing sufferings like a victim which is slaughtered for the sins of others,
(cp. Matt. 8: 17., Luke 22: 37., Acts 8: 32., 1 Pet. 2:
22-25., Rev. 5: 6, 12; 13: 8.).  Gabler offers, in his Melet.
in loc. Job. 1: 29., an interpretation which better suits the
figure implied in " the Lamb of God," but gives a rather unnatural and forced signification to the phrase 6o alo)v T. doQr.
-. zcoauov (" that taketh away the sin of the world"). This
critic renders: "he, the innocent martyr, who endureth the
sinful treatment of the world"; the airon (al'olv) being
interpreted after the analogy of 1 Mace. 13: 17., where
X-0oQav al'o.stv means to endure hatred. It does not follow,
however, that, because'O9. an. signifies to endure hatred,
Ca:etv Trv dujTaoitav means to endare the siiftl treatment,
for sinful treatment is not, it is sufficiently clear, a proper
rendering of d,uraeia in this connection.
IBut even among those who refer this expression of the fore.
runner's to the atoning stifferings of Christ, there is a difference of opinion as to the proper rendering of the latter part
of the declaration.  Some translate, as in the received version,
"who taketh away the sin of the world" (Robinson, in his
New Testament Lexicon, Meyer, and in part Olshausen),




182        JOHN'S TESTIMONY RESPECTING CHRIST.
giving airon the signification which it commonly bears in the
Septuagint, and consequently, agreeing so far, but only so
far, with the interpretation offered by Paulus and Kuinoel.Others adopt a different signification of the verb a'QeL, viz.,
that which it has in Gen. 45: 23., Job 21: 3., Lam. 3: 28.,
and render the phrase, "who beareth the sin of the world."
This idea is precisely correspondent with that expressed in
Is. 53., "he shall bear their iniquities" (v. 12.), "he bare
the sin of many" (v. 12.); and the allusion of the words of
the Baptist to this passage of the Old Testament prophecies
is too direct to allow of any other interpretation than that
which answers exactly to the Old Testament conception.
The meaning of the phrase, therefore, is, "who beareth the
sin [i. e. the punishment of the sin] of the world"; and in
this particular sense the evangelist John elsewhere (1 Jno.
3: 5.) uses the similar formula al'SeL d/uxoat, the idea expressed by which must be the same as that which he gives in
1 Jno. 2: 2. of the death of Christ (cp. Rev. 5: 6. 12.; 13:
8.; 1 Pet. 1: 19.). Such is the view of Tholuck, De Wette,
Bloomfield, Alford, and others; and it is that which accords
best with the manifest allusion of the passage to the sufferings
of a piacular victim.-Olshausen attempts to unite the two
meanings of aiQEIv, to bear and to tal-e away.  " The sacrificial
lamb," says he, " wfich bears the sin, also takes it away:
there is no bearing of sin without a taking of it away." In
a certain sense this is true; but it is not true because aI'oet,
means here to take away: it is only true as a consequence.
To unite two meanings so diverse, is illogical; and is only an
evasion of a difficulty in interpretation.
Jesus is here spoken of by the Baptist, as a lamb offered for
sin. This animal, though not the usual sin-offering, is selected




JOHN'S TESTIMONY RESPECTING CHRIST.       183
because it best represents the holy innocence and mild dignity
of the Saviour, and because it is that which forms the chief
figure in the representation of Isaiah which suggests the
expression here uttered by the forerunner.  Christ is depicted
as a piacular victim offered for the sins of the world:  "Such
a victim," says Bloomfield, " was solemnly brought to the
altar, and then the priest put his hands over the head; which
was a symbolical action, signifying that the sins committed by
the persons expiated were laid upon the victim; and, when it
was slaughtered, it was then said to bear the sins of the expiated; by which it was denoted that the victim paid the penalty of the sins committed, was punished with death in their
place, and for the purpose of freeing them from the penalty
of sin. Therefore when Christ is called the lamb bearing the
sins of the world, it is manifest that we must understand one
who should take upon himself the sins of men, so as to pay the
penalties of their sins, and in their stead, for the purpose
of freeing them from those penalties."
That the idea of a suffering Messiah was by no means wholly
foreign to the thoughts of the more pious Jews of John's
time, we have already seen when noticing the prophecy of
Simeon respecting Jesus (Luke 2: 29. ff.). We must, however, admit that John did not conceive the words which he
here uttered in their full and complete sense, for this could
have possibly been done by man only after the fulfillment of
the prediction; but that he connected the idea of a suffering
which the Messiah would undergo with the conception of a
divine kingdom which he was to establish, no one surely can
deny. We have to fall back once more upon the fact, that, as
in the Old Testament, so in the prophetic insight of the Baptist, the second and first appearances of the Lord are not kept




184        JOHN'S TESTIMONY RESPECTING CHRIST.
distinct; that John must, therefore, in consequence of the
ancient prophecies respecting the spiritual working of the
Messiah, have thought of a terrestrial glory which, though
struggling to victory at first through suffering and even
through death, should at length necessarily develop and
establish itself upon earth and found an earthly spiritual,
perfect theocratic kingdom which should extend itself visibly
and externally to all nations and have an eternal duration. If,
therefore, the period of the suffering of the Redeemer kept
itself'for the most part in the back-ground in his mind, forgotten as it were in the presence of his more lively hopes and
expectations respecting the everlasting glory which was to
proceed from the divine Messiah after he had come forth victorious from suffering, the remembrance of this period was
yet by no means entirely lost in him, and here, powerfully
excited by a sight of the meek Redeemer, it exhibited itself
with so much the more force and feeling, giving acuteness for
the moment to his prophetic vision, if not unraveling the whole
riddle of the future. This, then, was a prophetic intuition,
bordering indeed on Christianity, but yet, perhaps commingled with wholly heterogeneous elements. We are not, consequently, compelled to resort to any artificial explanation of
the words of the Baptist, lor to fall back on the supposition
that he had received some special instruction from Christ himself with regard to the necessity of his future suffering.  Of
such instruction we find not the least. mention in the sacred records; and such John could not have received without renouncing his own calling and becoming a disciple of Christ's,
and this, according to the divine intention, he neither was nor
could be.
If we understand aright John's conception regarding these




JOHN'S TESTIMONY RESPECTING CHRIST.     185
two periods, the one of suffering and the other of divine glory,
which the Messiah was to experience, we will know at once
how to estimate that other more full expression of his regarding his successor (Jno. 3:' 27-36.), and will discover that-it is
altogether out of the reach of cavil, and perfectly consonant
with his habits of thinking. The testimony in question he gave
to his own disciples, and in opposition to their views and expectations, when they complained to him that he respecting
whom their master had at an earlier period borne witness,who, therefore, as they supposed, notwithstanding the Baptist's
distinct declaration to the contrary, ought, in accordance with
the usual course of things, to have honored and attached himself to John as his master,-instead of joining himself as a
disciple to the Baptist, was collecting a band of adherents
around himself, was intrenching upon the office of John, since
he had himself begun to baptize, and was attempting to overshadow him in every way.-These reproaches against Christ
the Baptist repelled with the observation, that, if Jesus was
collecting so great a body of disciples around him, this must
be the will of God; and that the same'was true, if his own
authority was decreasing; for it stood in the power of no man
to obtain in any way an important part to act in the kingdom
of God, unless God himself had called him thereto and given
him the capacity to perform it. He appeals then to his own
earlier testimony respecting Christ, that he was only commissioned to go before him, but was not himnself the Messiah; in
which it is distinctly implied that he stood far beneath the Redeemer, and could not attain to power and glory equal to his.
In order to render this relation comprehensible to them, he
makes use of a figurative representation which was very
current in that age, particularly among.the theocratic nation,




186        JOHN'S TESTIMONY RESPECTING CHRIST.
by which the Lord and God of his people is depicted as at the
same time the spouse, or as the bridegroom,. of his people
given to him in truth and obedience as his spouse or bride.
Applying this idea to the Messiah, John represents himself as
the friend of the bridegroom (Heb. shoshbhen) or conductor
of the bride, whose especial business it is to arrange the preliminaries of the marriage,-who conducts the bride to the
bridegroom, and then modestly retiring finds his reward in the
joy of the bridegroom in the possession of his beloved.
"This pleasure I now enjoy in full measure," said the noble,
modest John, " I have conducted the people to the Messiah,
and removed from the way the hindrances which prevented the
union of the two; now is my office completed, I must again
retire by degrees into my former obscurity; my authority
must decrease in the same measure according to which the
Messiah, the husband and lord of his church, shall increase in
power and influence; my reward consists in the consciousness
of the faithful fulfillment of my duty and of the joy of the
Messiah in the union which has been so happily completed."
This was sufficient.to show the impropriety and groundlessness of the complaints of his disciples. In order, however, to
give a still more complete explanation of his relation to the
Messiah, and to exhmiit still more plainly the dignity of the
latter, there are added yet other remarks (vs. 31-36.) of a concise, sententious brevity; of which, however, though the
matter is probably John's, the form is rather to be attributed
to the evangelist.
Reference is here made first of all to the divine nature of
Christ, of which John had previously borne witness in the
words which have been already examined. He that cometh
from above is by that very fact elevated above all men, above




JOHN'S TESTIMONY RESPECTING CHRIST.      18T
all creatures: he, on the contrary, who has his origin on earth
is according to his nature earthly, and belongs to that which
is created; his word, therefore, his doctrine, partakes of an
earthly character, and even if it proceeds, as it does in the
case of the Baptist, from divine illumination, it never attains
nevertheless to perfect purity and clearness, but is troubled
and obscured by the weakness and sinfulness of its earthly
organ. On the contrary, only he who comes from heaven, and,
as the ruler over all, is possessed of all wisdom and a divine
insight into things,' can teach and bear testimony to that which
he in consequence of his divine nature has heard from and
seen with the creator and ruler of all things. Casting a
glance, half sorrowful, half reproachful, at the disciples who
had taken offence at the appearance of Christ and found fault
with his conduct, the Baptist adds: "But his testimony,
divine though it is, has no one received (v. 32.)."
Evidently "no one" (oiWe) is not to be taken here absolutely; for the very ground of the complaint of John's disciples and of the conversation which they held with him, was
that multitudes were resorting to Christ (v. 26.); the remark
must, therefore, have been made with reference primarily to
those disciples who were then standing around and conversing
with the Baptist; but since, as we have seen, the prophetic
vision of John foresaw the ignominy and persecution which
Christ was destined to endure, so there is good reason to think
that this expression was employed by him in view of the opposition which the testimony of the Messiah was yet to meet
with from every quarter, notwithstanding that the excitable
multitude now crowded around him in great numbers.-That
the Baptist himself intended this expression to be understood
with a limitation we perceive from the testimony which ho




188       J.OHNS TESTIMONY RESPECTING CHRIST.
immediately subjoins, that whoever should give ear to the
teaching of Christ should experience within himself its divine
truth in a manner that would be powerful and unquestionable,
and would sanction and confirm as with a seal the fact that
God is true and his words true (v. 33.); for Christ's words
are God's words, they are not intermingled with errors and
untruths, such as human teaching cannot be wholly free from;
for he in whom God has so implanted his Spirit as John saw
it in an image on the occasion of his baptism, is possessed of
the perfect and infallible Spirit; he possesses it not partially,
but has received it in an unlimited measure; and therefore all
his words are wholly divine, and must convince all those who
follow him of their perfect correspondence with divine truth
(v. 34.). The reason why God has so highly exalted the Messiah, whom John had heard divinely announced as the Son of
God and whom he himself declared to be such, and has endowed him with dominion over all things, is based in his love
to his Son, unto whom as being of his being and existence
of his existence he has imparted the highest power upon
earth (v. 35.), so that now all who would attain to happiness
must believe in him and submit themselves to him with faithful
confidence; he that does not believe, who, on the contrary,
opposes himself to the Messiah, has incurred the wrath of
God, which so long as he does not turn in penitence unto
the Son will continue to abide upon him (v. 36.).
It might now be asked, especially fn view of the last observation, if the Baptist perceived so clearly that salvation could
only be found in a believing resignation to the Messiah,
why did he not now resign himself wholly to him, and seek
from him salvation? Perhaps on no other ground than because he did not suppose that the precise time had come when




JOHN S TESTIMONY RESPECTING CHRIST.      189
the Messiah,-whom he with all his spiritual conceptions expected, as did Christ's own disciples even after his resurrection (Acts 1: 6.), to make his appearance before the nation in
earthly power and glory,-would with a loud summons collect
around him all his disciples; and because, moreover, he could
not have conceived of faith in him in the sense in which it was
afterwards portrayed by Paul, but meant only in this recognition of the Messiah to exhibit him as the one in whom dwelt
perfection. On this point more will be said in the following
chapter. Here it is only requisite to observe, that, as has
been shown, there is properly found in this full testimony of
John's nothing which is not consistent with the other expressions of his respecting Christ which have been previously examined, nay, nothing which is not necessarily contained in the
same.
The form of these words, however, appears to belong more
to the evangelist John than to the Baptist. If one will only
compare the expressions of the evangelist in the prologue to
his Gospel, which in several points, coincide almost verbally
with the form of words which is adduced here as that used by
the Baptist; and if, furthermore, he will compare the verses
which constitute the conclusion of Nicodemus' conversation with
Jesus (3: 16-21.), and other single expressions of Christ
himself (as in Jno. 15.), he will perceive that the entire impress and coloring of the words from v. 31 to v. 36. indicate
the mind of a believing Christian, rather than of a prophet
who stood as yet without the pale of Christianity. They,
therefore, do not think amiss (Kuinoel, Tholuck, Olshausen,
Meyer, etc.), who suppose that the form of John's testimony
has been to some extent obliterated from v.- 31. onward, by
the evangelist in giving his narrative. It must have been dif



190        JOHN'S TESTIMONY RESPECTING CHRIST.
ficult for a disciple of the Lord who was accustomed to a
mode of contemplation altogether Christian, to have preserved
for us perfectly true to their form the precise conceptions of
the Baptist, which bordered so very closely on what are in all
respects genuine Christian thoughts; unless, indeed, these expressions were limited to such short pithy sayings as those
given in the examples which have been previously considered,
or to such peculiar Old Testament images as that presented
in vs. 28-30. Provided we do not, on this account, doubt
that the evangelist has preserved for us in these verses the
true contents of the expressions of the Baptist, if we do not
suppose that he has interpolated among them foreign and false
thoughts, we do not.in fact nor do we appear to cast any
doubts either upon the character of the evangelist or upon the
historical truth of his Gospel, when we admit that the form
of the words as they have been delivered to us, pertain to him
and not to the Baptist. That, on the other hand, the evangelist does not give us his own reasoning from v. 31. onwards,
is clear from the fact that he in no way lets us understand
that here the remarks of the Baptist cease and his own begin,
and from the further fact that he speaks throughout in the person and in accordance with the relations of the Baptist. He
intends to represent to us the continuation of the testimony of
John, and this he does; only, his style and mode of narration,
either consciously or unconsciously to himself, no longer retain firmly and give back in their precise original form the
almost perfectly Christian expressions of the Baptist, but his
own Christian consciousness gradually seizes and conducts his
pen in the representation




THE DISCIPLES OF THE BAPTIST.         191
CHAPTER II.
THE DISCIPLES OF THE BAPTIST.
WE have hitherto spoken on several occasions of the disciples of John, but have delayed till now treating of them
in full and regular connection. It was very natural and customary in ancient times for special adherents to collect around
a distinguished man who proposed some new doctrine or introduced some particular mode of living, in order that they might
learn from him, and form themselves under his conversation by
friendly intercourse. As this happened among heathen nations
in the case of philosophers, who always collected around them
a chosen circle of scholars, so also it took place among the
Jews of that age in the case of distinguished teachers of the
law and in the case of ascetics, with whom many, either from
inclination or impelled by some necessity, were wont to associate, as we have already had occasion to see in the example
of Banus and Josephus. Just so had it been at an earlier
period with the prophets, who established their prophetic
schools in which they instructed their disciples,-who came to
th3m sometimes of their own inward impulse, and sometimes
were called by them,-in the things which pertained to the
kingdom of God and its requirements (cp. especially the history of Elijah and Elisha). These prophetic schools "were
institutions to which the children or the disciples of the
prophets resorted; and they were the most numerously attended and the most celebrated under Samuel, and subsequently under Elisha and Elijah. Their residence was in the




192           THE DISCIPLES OF THE BAPTIST.
country, where they had all things in common, and lived a
life of frugality, poverty, and toil. Yet they had always sufficient leisure to devote to study and contemplation, because
their desires were easily satisfied, and because, removed from
frivolous pursuits, they still found time enough after their
bodily labors for the loftier exercise of mind. Thither the
people came to have doubts removed, and duties taught.
They found in the prophets precept enforced by example,-the
moral beauty of a holy life; they found instruction for time
and preparation for eternity. They were the most trustworthy
dnd most enlightened interpreters of the law. Their whole
being was radiant with radiant instruction; their sermons,
their prophecies, their denunciations, their life, their very external demeanor."*
In this same way also did there collect about John, who
made his appearance after the manner of the prophets of old
ime and separated himself distinctly from the common people
y his doctrine and his mode of life, individual adherents with
dispositions like his own, who connected themselves with him
in close familiarity, either urged on by a true feeling of their
necessity for a deeper insight into the divine will and counsels,
or for training in a rigid moral life, or else,-since among
many of them more impure grounds governed their conduct,connecting themselves with him in order to derive some personal advantage from the reputation of being the intimate
associates of a master so highly distinguished. The tie which
existed between these and John must not be supposed to have
been of such a nature that they, chained, so to speak, continually to their master, never left him, and had estranged themselves from all their customary relations on his account. On
* Journal of Sacred Literature, vol. 3. (Jan. 1849) pp. 91, 92.




THE DISCIPLES OF THE BAPTIST.         193
the contrary, there is no doubt that they attended to their
ordinary avocations just as before, and only now and then
delayed for a season longer than usual in his company. Only
such youths as had to perform as yet no fixed duties of a civil
and social character remained with him, perhaps, in more constant companionship, assisted him, it is not unlikely, in his
baptismal employment, and were instructed by him in the
exercise of rigid repentance, and especially how to exhibit
such conduct as would be pleasing to God. The wealthy
among his disciples took upon themselves, no doubt, the supply
of the few and simple necessities of the self-denying Baptist;
and, perhaps, many gifts were brought to him by the people
who focked to his ministry.. Of the training which the disciples of John received from
their master we have very few indications in the Gospels.
Without doubt he instructed them more fully and thoroughly
than he did in his short addresses to the people regarding the
expectations which he must have cherished respecting the
coming Messianic reign after the training he received in the
Old Testament and after the partial divine enlightenment
which he had enjoyed. That many of his instructions, however,-especially those which related to his own inferiority to
the Messiah, and to the ignominy and suffering which the
latter would have to undergo,-were and continued to be
totally foreign to the fleshly sense of his disciples, we readily
discover, partly from the complaints which they made, as we
saw in the previous chapter, of the arrogance on the part of
Christ in collecting around him a greater number of adherents
than John himself, and partly from the apparent incapacity of
the disciples of Christ,-who had for the most part been at an
earlier period the disciples of John, —to comprehend the re



194            THE DISCIPLES OF THE BAPTIST.
peated announcement of Jesus respecting his sufferings and
death, to which they could not in any way reconcile themselves until they saw its fulfillment take place before their eyes.
Independently of this, the chief aim and end of the instruction given to his adherents by the Baptist, were, perhaps, a
training in rigid practices indicative of repentance. He himself stood yet; even as they did, upon the Old Testament legal
stand-point, according to which the inward repentant disposition must be rendered distinct and definite by outward action,
be openly exhibited, and be thereby so much the more confirmed and established. Accordingly, he required of them in
particular the practice of rigid fasting, as we read in Matt.
9: 14., Mark 2: 18., Luke 5: 33.; which is the most universally understood and wide-spread token that man, feeling
sorrow for his sinfulness, would mortify the flesh by rigid restraints, in order that it may not with ever greater wantonness, with ever increasing violence, contend against the soul;
and with these fasts were connected, without doubt, special
deprivations of the ordinary enjoyments and even necessities
of life, as also, perhaps, washings and lustrations.
We learn, moreover, from Luke 11: 1. that John held with
his disciples special exercises in prayer, and himself taught
them how they ought and for what they should pray, in order
that they might obtain from God power to conduct themselves
aright, a reception into the new divine kingdom, and the forgiveness of their sins.*'While, therefore, with Christ, direc* On the margin of the Philoxenian (Syriac) Version of the New Testament
we find a formula of prayer, which, it is said, of course falsely, that the Baptist
and his disciples were accustomed to use in their devotions. It runs as follows:
"Father, show unto us thy glory!
"Son, grant that we may hear thy voice!
"Spirit, hallow our hearts forever: Amen."




THE DISCIPLES OF THE BAPTIST.        195
tions respecting the form in which God ought to be worshipped
were kept as far as possible in the back-ground, with John they
seem, as might naturally be expected from his more external
legal stand-point, to have played an important part, and to
have formed one of the chief points of the training which he
gave to his disciples.
The sect which the disciples of the Baptist constituted after
his death, becoming separated and excluded from Jiudaism,
was treated with ignominy by the people at large: their master John, on the contrary, was constantly, and with a unanimous and fixed decision on the part of the nation, regarded as
a just man and a prophet (Matt. 21: 26., Josephus, Antiq.
18, 5. 2.). This recognition his followers subsequently urged
to the utmost extreme, departing from the clear light of history and ascribing to him higher and more wonderful attributes than he possessed; attributing to him miraculous powers,
and adding to what he taught other doctrines of a theosophic
character, especially after the Gnostic systems,,which had been
created from the intermingling of Christianity with the dogmas of heathen philosophy, had thrown all the speculative
minds of that age into confusion, and led them astray from
the pure doctrine of Christ, more or less according as they
possessed greater or less knowledge or had experienced in a
greater or less degree the regenerating influence of the Gospel.
To such persons as continued from the beginning to live and
act in full or partial opposition to Christianity, this recognition furnished a welcome pretence for continually depreciating
Christ according to their pleasure, and on the other hand for
elevating above him  men chosen from  among themselves,
whose character and acts were more in correspondence with
their own. In this way, especially, it is probable, through the




196           THE DISCIPLES OF THE BAPTIST,
accession of heathen oriental philosophers, who found in the
history of John the Baptist a useful historic foundation for
their accustomed and favorite speculations, was formed the
Gnostic sect of the later disciples of John, or Zabians, whose
views corresponded in general with those of the other Syriac
anti-Jewish Gnostic systems, retaining a peculiarity for the
most Dart only in the deification of John.
The sect here alluded to, the so-called Sabeans (UnTraTLzcl,
Baptizers, from the Hebrew tseba', to dip, to immerse), or, as
they are also denominated, Nazareans, Mencdeans, and Disciples of John the Baptist, or Christians of St. John, has
existed in the East from the earliest period of Christianity.
The people themselves, as well as their holy books, which are
written in Syriac, have been known to Europeans only about
five hundred years.  "This sect," says Neander, "evidently
took its origin from those disciples of John the Baptist, who,
contrary to the spirit and intention of their master, adopted,
after his martyrdom, a course hostile to Christianity. We
find traces of them, mixed up with fabulous matter, in the
Clementines, and in the Recognitiones Clementis, perhaps also
in the lueqo-Bfa7TtulaTga and yalcailosg of Hegesippus.  From
this sprung up afterwards a sect, whose system, formed out of
the elements of an older eastern theosophy, has an important
connection with the history of the Gnosis."*  The holy books
of the Sabeans, six in number, are thoroughly penetrated with
the leaven of Gnosticism.  One of them, Sidra Jahia, the Book
of John, gives the history of the Baptist whom the Sabeans
claim as the founder of their sect, from his birth to his death.
To John they ascribe the origin of their rites and ceremonies;
and they say that they received from him all their sacred
i Church History, Prof. Torrey's transl., vol. I. p. 376, note.




THE DISCIPLES OF THE BAPTIST.               197
books. The Sidra Jahia is, of course, quite different from
the evangelical account, and is filled with legends of the most
improbable character.    With   regard to Jesus, as well as
John, whom they represent as superior to Christ, the views
given in these books are altogether at variance with those of
the New Testament.     The difference is not so great, however,
as to warrant us in doubting the historical connection between
the Sabeans and Christianity.-Valuable information, but
such as is not pertinent here, respecting the religious opinions
of this sect, is to be found in Leopold, Johannes der Tdufer,
p. 182-195.*
* There is, as far as we know, no full account in English of the Sabeans and
their religion. L. E. Burckhardt has written a work on this subject which
is, on the whole, the best for general circulation; it is entitled Les Nazaweens
appelles Zabiens et Chretiens de St. Jean, Secte Gnostique, Strasburg, 1840.
NOTE TO THE FIFTH EDITION.-The author of the present Treatise has
prepared and published an elaborate article on the Sabeans,-their
history, condition, literature, and religious rites. It will be found in The
Christian Review for January 1855, under the title "The Nazoreans, or
Mandai Jahia,-Disciples of John the Baptist."




198       REFERENCE OF HIS DISCIPLES TO CHRIST.
CHAPTER III.
REFERENCE OF HIS DISCIPLES TO CHRIST.
WHEN now Christ had actually made his appearance and
was entering upon his ministry, John was sufficiently modest
and self-denying to point his disciples away from himself to
him who was greater, from whom they could obtain better
nutriment for their hearts and spirits. It is narrated in Jno.: 35. if. that he stood with two of his disciples in the place
where he was accustomed to baptize, and, seeing Jesus passing
by, he called the attention of these disciples anew to his dignity, speaking of him as he had done previously when bearing
witness of him in their hearing (v. 29.), "behold the Lamb
of God."  It is probable that he uttered these words with
such a tone and gesture that the disciples understood it to be
their master's will that they should make themselves acquainted
with Jesus. They followed him, therefore, in order to discover
his dwelling, after which they purposed to choose a fit opportunity to gain further information from his own lips respecting
his views and his doctrines. Jesus anticipates their modest
discretion, and, taking them. at once to his house, he plants
in a long interview the first seeds of the divine word in their
susceptible souls; then he dismisses them from his presence in
order that they may feel this first impression working within
them in its full power, and that the seed sown may shoot forth
into life. One of these disciples, Andrew, is expressly named
(v. 40.); the other was, there is little or no doubt, the apostle
John. By their means Simon Peter, the brother of Andrew,




REFERENCE OF HIS DISCIPLES TO CHRIST.     199
who was also a disciple of John's, is made acquainted with the
Lord; and in this way there was formed from these adherents
of the Baptist the first band of Christ's disciples, at first indeed having no closer connection with him than followed from
their being now and then in his company, but soon bound to
his person by indissoluble ties, since it was in him alone that
they found the words of eternal life.
The question now demands consideration, why John did not
now refer all of his disciples to Christ, and not merely certain individuals among them.-We must in the first place consider
that John, when he called the attention of these two disciples
specially to Christ by repeating the words, "behold the Lamb
of God," by no means intended to say, " separate yourselves
henceforth from me and become followers of Jesus"; for it was
not possible for every one to become at his own pleasure an
intimate disciple of Christ, since he himself chose them and
called them to that office. The Baptist meant to hint to them
that they should make the acquaintance of Jesus, and keep
him in their eye as the one by whom signal changes were in a
short time to be produced. There is, moreover, no reason
why we should not suppose that others also of John's disciples
sought Jesus and heard his teachings as long as he remained
in their neighborhood; but Jesus called them not, and they
on their part supposed that they must wait for a public signal
from him at the time when he would actually establish his
kingdom.-It is to be remarked, furthermore, that John would
have referred to Jesus only the better instructed of his disciples and those who were farthest advanced in their longing foi
and knowledge of the kingdom of God,-only such as had a
true disposition and susceptibility for the heavenly, and would
with meek resignation cling to the Messiah in the period of




200       REFERENCE OF HIS DISCIPLES TO CHRIST.
his humility; and this it was clearly impossible to expect from
all the disciples of the Baptist. There must have been many
among them wiho, notwithstanding all the instructions which
they had received from John respecting tie Messianic kingdom, had none other than altogether fleshly conceptions, and
in their minds by no means associated with the external rites
and ceremonies which they practised, that idea of which those
rites were intended to be the outward expression. Such persons as these, since Jesus had not as yet accredited his dignity
by external manifestations, John could not possibly have directed to him as the Messiah. Many of them, moreover,
would have found fault with the manner of life adopted by
Jesus, one altogether simple and exhibiting nothing that was
particularly striking or strange; for their master John appeared to them to be in his rigid asceticism the ideal of perfect
morality. From this feeling which was ever directed to what
was external, and which had no lively consciousness of the
higher importance of the inward disposition, might have easily
proceeded at a later period an opposition to Christ, a denial
of his Messianic dignity; and so much the more surely, if the
humility which distinguished John should have been wanting
in his disciples, and if they could not and would not endure
that it should be said that their master was less elevated than
he who had himself needed his baptism and his testimony.
And history, as we have seen, actually relates to us how this
opposition was carried to its extreme at a later period by the
adherents of the Baptist. We have already remarked, and
shall in the sequel have further occasion to notice, how enviously they expressed themselves against the great popularity
of Jesus; and this envy must, from the nature of the case,
have increased more and more in those of them who came not




REFERENCE  F HIS DISCIPLES TO CHRIST.    201
to a knowledge of the truth; for the more heavily misfortune
pressed upon their master, the higher did the fame of Jesus
rise. Surely such as these could not have been the last to
hasten the execution of the sentence which deprived the Lord
of life, and to persecute the followers of him they had crucified.
It is time now to examine somewhat more minutely the reasons why John did not, after giving his public testimony to the
Zl~essianic dignity of Jesus, publicly declare himself his disciple,
and attend upon his ministry.-Perhaps one of the reasons
which has been assigned already in explanation of the fact
that the most of John's disciples did not come into a close
connection with Christ, will also account for the Baptist's not
becoming his immediate follower. Jesus, as we have seen,
chose his own disciples; and did not receive such as came to
him merely from their own impulses (cp. Luke 9: 57-62.).
A man could be an adherent of Christ's and recognize him as
the Messiah, without being on that account an intimate disciple and living with him in constant intercourse; and in this
sense was John an adherent, but Jesus chose him not as a disciple. But, why not?   On this account, perhaps-because
he would collect around him only such susceptible hearts.as,
feeling within the living need of a Redeemer and filled with a
desire to find him, were yet engaged in searching him out, and
still had, therefore, an open ear and ready mind for the new
and unexpected teachings of the Messiah; who could yield
themselves to him with undivided hearts, and devote their
whole existence to the love and imitation of their great master.
Such an one was not John.  He had already struggled powerfully in contemplation and thought within himself, and from
this inward reflection he had developed a view, not to say sys



202       REFERENCE OF HIS DISCIPLES TO CHRIST.
ter, respecting the kingdom of God which, because it was the
product of his own spirit, could with so much the more difficulty be discarded by him and exchanged for another. His
entire being, his life and his conduct were something prepared
and decided upon within himself; in him, therefore, the new
claims and new doctrines of Christ could with difficulty find
entrance; and in no case was he qualified to become himself a
proclaimer of the gospel. Adopting this view of the matter,
we are not obliged to suppose, as some have done, that Jesus
at a later period gave John special instruction,-a supposition
which is destitute of support from the narratives of the evangelists, and which comes into direct conflict with the doubts
which John is represented as having afterwards entertained.
It was not il general Jesus' manner of teaching to impart
ready-fashioned ideas and scientific dogmas respecting himself
and his kingdom, as must have been the case with John,
whose doctrines nevertheless sound very much like those which
are truly and wholly Christian. Jesus, on the contrary, inciting the mind to attention, scattered here and there a word
of life into susceptible souls and waited until it had germinated,
in order that he might lead each in his own individuality to a
full knowledge of salvation.
John, as has been already remarked, was called by G.od to
baptize in water, and to prepare the people for the coming of
the Messiah; and as long as he could do this from his own
stand-point, God left him in this position and took not the
office from him. He was still to prepare the way, still to
announce unto those who had as yet no knowledge of the fact,
that the kingdom of the Messiah was at hand, and that they
must exercise repentance in order to be received into it. He
it was, according to the testimony of Christ himself (Matt.




REFERENCE OF HIS DISCIPLES TO CHRIST.    203
11  10.), who was to arouse the people to a desire of obtaining admission into the kingdom of Christ; and this he could
do as well now as before the public appearance of Christ; he
could still by his testimony respecting Jesus accredit him as
the Messiah, and point the better prepared among the people
to his dignified character; he could still elevate those who
heard him to his own stand-point and impress upon them the
truth that. the Lord would establish not a mere earthly kingdom, but one in its outlines and essential character altogether
spiritual; and, after \ards, Jesus himself could by degrees
teach those who had been previously so prepared, that he had
come to found a purely spiritual kingdom, and that the earthly
power which John supposed would be connected with it should
be first outwardly exhibited at his second advent.-" This preparatory position of John," says Neander, Life of Jesus, ~ 41.
(2.), "had to continue until the time when the entrance of
Jesus as theocratic king, upon the establishment of his kingdom, gave the signal for all to range themselves under his
banners. The Baptist, true to the position that had been
assigned to him in the theocratic development, had to continue
his labors until their termination, a termination which external
circumstances were soon to bring about." A similar view on
this point is entertained by Winer, (Bib. TRealwiorterbuch, Art.
Joh. d. Tdufer); and is assented to by De Wette (Cor. on
Jno. 3: 36.).-Meanwhile, however, John's testimony, though
given to the Messiah, continued to be altogether private, and
was not made in the presence of the people at large. It is
for this reason, perhaps, and because, moreover, the value of
the testimony depended entirely upon the recognition of John's
prophetic calling, that no mention is made in those public
proclamations of tht gospel described in Acts 10: 37, and




204       REFERENCE OF HIS DISCIILES TO CHRIST.
13: 25., of the Baptist's inspired testimony concerning Christ,
while, on the contrary, his exhortations to repentance and his
announcement of the coming Messiah are particularly spoken
of as the preparation for the Messiah's public ministry.
Finally, we must, in accounting for the fact under consideration, bear in mind what has previously been noticed, that the
imperfect and in some respects incorrect expectations of John
respecting the founding of the kingdom of the Messiah, must
have prevented him at this time from coming into closer connection with Christ. He still expected that Jesus would by
some public act declare himself a king, the promised son of
David, and would then summon all his disciples under his
colors, in order to establish again the fallen kingdom of Israel.
Then, he thought, would be the time for him to follow the
call; then indeed would he not hesitate to share with his
monarch the sufferings and persecutions, which, according to
his conceptions, the Messiah was to undergo; in order finally
to come forth victorious with him, and to receive a share in
the glory which was then to be imparted to him'by the Father
and in his eternal dominion over all lands and over all spirits.
Until this time should arrive, the Baptist continued performing
the duties. of the office which had been assigned him; he
pointed the people to the Messiah; he persevered in bringing
them into a more, and more complete state of preparation, in
order that all might be ready, when the great hour should
strike in which Jesus would place himself at their head, and
commence the struggle with the world and the devil; waiting
for this time to come, he continued performing as before his
appropriate work, preaching, baptizing, and bearing testimony
to the Messiah.




THE BAPTISM OF JOHN.'05
CHAPTER IV.
RELATION OF THE BAPTISM OF JOHN TO THAT OF THE DISCIPLES
OF CHRIST AND TO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
WE cannot close our consideration of the public ministry of
John without treating somewhat more minutely of his baptism, which, as we have seen, seemed to come into conflict
towards the last with the baptism administered by the disciples of Christ (cp. Jno. 3: 22., and the supplementary correction of these words in Jno. 4: 2., where it is said that Jesus
himself did not baptize, but only his disciples.). We have
seen that the baptism of John was, in its distinctive features,
a summons to repietance, a seal of the resolution to exercise
it and of the constant performance of this resolution with
continual reference to the Messiah who was soon to come in
order to confer upon all faithful hearts the forgiveness of
their sins. This signification the Johannean baptism continued
to retain; for even after Christ had publicly appeared, the
Messiah must still have been represented to all those who
came unto John as yet to come, yet to appear in the future,
especially since there was rooted in the hearts of all those that
attended upon John's instructions the expectation that the
Messiah would usher in, by some political act, the beginning
of his grand and imposing ministry. John, therefore, continued to baptize all that promised repentance, referring, as he
had done before, to him who should come after him,-just as,
according to Jno. 1: 26, 27., he speaks of Christ, who had
(already appeared and had been recognized by him, as one




206         RELATION OF THE BAPTISM OF JOHN
still to come, and in the same way at a later period at the
sending of his disciples on a mission of inquiry to Jesus
(Matt. 11: 3.); at the same time, however, pointing the more
susceptible among them to Jesus, as we have seen he did, and
proclaiming him to be the one that was promised, and the one
that should be his successor.
Those followers of John who had afterwards become the
disciples of Jesus, and from their own contemplation and conviction had recognized the Saviour of the world, must have
regarded the baptism of John which still referred only to him
who was to come, as imperfect; since he whom the Baptist
proclaimed had actually made his appearance. Wlien, therefore, they came, in company with Christ in his wanderings, to
the river Jordan near the place at which it empties into the
Dead Sea, in which region John also was then holding forth,
taking advantage of this favorable opportunity for baptizing
in order to carry out here and perfect the act of their former
master, they baptized those who acknowledged that they
recognized in Jesus the Saviour of the world, not indeed with
reference to a coming, but in the name of a present Redeemer.
Nothing else than this could they have had in view or attained
by this baptism; for the Holy Spirit, according to the testimony of the same evangelist who relates this occurrence, was
not yet given (Jno.:. 39.); the rite, therefore, could have been
nothing more than a water baptism with a requirement and
promise from the candidate that he would exercise repentance,
and an acknowledgment on his part that Jesus was the Christ,
and the one from whom alone salvation was to be expected.
In substance, consequently, this baptism of the disciples of
Christ did not differ from that administered by John; but
only in this, that the latter only pointed to the Messiah from




TO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.             207
afar as one that was about to come, while the former, on the
other hand, represented him as- now present, and required from
its recipients a confession of faith in Jesus personally as the
predicted Messiah. It is evident that both such as had previously received the rite administered by John and such as
now came for the first time to baptism, could become the subjects of this rite of the disciples; for not only could those
who had at an earlier period given evidence of their eager
desire to receive in a manner worthy of him the coming Messiah, now confirm by their reception of baptism their belief
that this Jesus was the Christ, but those who now heard for
the first time of the expected advent of the Messiah, since
they were able in general to attain to a belief in this announcement with little more facility than they could to a conviction
of the realization of the expectation in the person of Jesus,
could readily be induced to allow themselves to be enrolled
by baptism among the community of believers in his divine
mission and authority.
Jesus himself did not, it is clear, administer this baptism;
in such a case he would have had to baptize in his own name,
and then he of whom John proclaimed that he would baptize
not in water but in the Holy Spirit and in fire, would have
commenced again a rite which was only preparatory to entrance
into his kingdom, and not very different from that administered by John. He did not, however, prevent his disciples
from baptizing; for it must have consisted with his ideas of
propriety that as many as possible should be made ready, be it
by means of John or by means of his own disciples, for the
coming of his reign, in order that he might find every where
a better-prepared foundation for the reception of the divine
word. During the time, therefore, that he himself taught




208         RELATION OF THE BAPTISM OF JOHN
near the river Jordan, his disciples baptized; and the people,
powerfully moved by the words of Christ, and discerning that
the Spirit of God abode in him, submitted themselves the
more zealously to this baptism, and testified in the act that
they truly believed in this their divine teacher. In this way
the number of those who by baptism acknowledged themselves
the adherents of Jesus, kept constantly increasing, and more
and more persons kept continually resorting to him instead of
going as before to the Baptist; so that the number of those
who were baptized by Christ's disciples soon became greater.
than those who had received the rite from John (Jno. 4: 1.).
On this accoun, therefore, the envy of such of John's disciples
as stood as yet upon a lower and more fleshly stand-point, was
powerfully excited; and when liow a contest respecting the
worth and efficacy of this ceremony arose between them and a
Jew (i. e. a member of the Sanhedrim and of the College of
representatives of the people), and when the latter probably
insisted upon ranking the baptism of the Apostles higher than
that of John, they hastened in anger to their master, and complained to him of the assumption of his former scholar. We
have seen how victoriously and with what humility John
repelled their charges.
This baptismal ceremony of the disciples of Christ appears,
moreover, to have been only temporary, and by no means to
have continued during the whole life-time of Christ. We find
no where else either in John or in the other evangelists the
least trace of the further practice of the rite. It was not
until after the resurrection that Jesus commanded his disciples
to baptize; but this is quite a different ceremony, genuine
Christian baptism, of which we shall have further occasion to
speak. Since this, therefore, is the only passage where' this




TO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.             209
baptism is mentioned, and since even here it is spoken of rather
incidentally, we are perhaps warranted in concluding that the
more the disciples came to a knowledge of the character
of Christ and of the divine word,'the more they hesitated to
make use of this external symbol; and they soon perceived, it
is probable, that Jesus' teaching and miracles were a more
powerful and better means of arousing and of confirming faith
in him than this merely outward ceremony.
The disciples were, it is likely, incited to the performance
of this rite by a feeling of opposition to the baptism of John,
which they regarded as imperfect; but this opposition must
speedily have ceased, for John was soon after cast into prison.
They were still at this time too much involved in the circle of
ideas which they had received from their former master, and
too much accustomed to the manner of his ministry, not to fall
into the error of laying too much stress upon mere outward
water baptism; and from this feeling arose their opposition to
the incomplete rite that was performed by John, and their institution of a new baptism in the name of the Messiah who
had already appeared on earth. They were incited, moreover,
to the performance of the ceremony not a little by their contiguity to the Jordan, the sight of which stream irresistibly
impelled them to make use of its waters for baptism, which
was at that time performed by a total immersion. As soon,
however, as the disciples had removed from the neighborhood
of the Jordan,-which they soon did, because Jesus feared that
the enmity of the Pharisees would be aroused by hearing that
such numbers were attending upon his ministry (Jno. 4: 1.),
-and had come into other regions where a suitable quantity
of water was not so convenient of access; this physical hindrance must of itself have called their attention to the fact




210          RELATION OF THE BAPTISM OF JOHN
that. the administration of baptism was by no means necessary
to the advancement of the cause of Christ, but that Jesus
had within himself the means of gaining admission and favor
among the people. The more zealously they pressed around
the person of the Redeemer and' feared to lose a word from
his lips, so much the less did they feel themselves called upon
to prosecute this baptismal labor; especially since Jesus himself, though he had not previously hindered them from baptizing on the ground of its impropriety, but on the contrary
had considered the act as in many respects useful, did not at
a subsequent period urge them to renew the performance of
the ceremony.
What relation, now, did these two baptismal rites sustain to
Christian baptism? That both of them were only preparatory we have already seen; since they only pointed to the
Messiah, (the one, as yet to come; the other, as having made
his appearance,) who should bring forgiveness of sins. Christian baptism, on the other hand, was the actual impartation of
all that salvation which had been obtained for men by the life
and death of Christ: it did not merely promise the forgiveness of sins, but included it within itself, and was a baptism
in the Holy Spirit.   Here also was immersion in water
still a symbol of purification, but there was added to this
negative another and a positive element: it was also the
symbol of immersion into a new spirit of life; or, as Paul has
somewhat differently turned the igure, the immersion was a
symbol that our old man is dead and buried with Christ, while
the emersion is a symbol of resurrection and of acting in
newness of life.-Besides operating thus objectively, the
Christian rite had yet another signification: it was a sign of
the reception of him that had been baptized into the Cliristian




TO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.             211
community. Those other two preparatory-ceremonies founded,
as we have seen, no new community, for they could at most
only betoken a greater or less spiritual advancement in their
recipients; but Christian baptism, on the contrary, introduced
a new spiritual element into man and made him thereby an
altogether new creation; and consequently an entirely new
community must have originated from these adherents and followers of Christ who differed so essentially from the rest
of men.
We are impelled, therefore, to this conclusion, that the impartation of the Holy Spirit is always the chief thing in Christian baptism, that immersion in water as being an outward
symbol is not wholly essential, and that just in the same proportion as the significancy of the rite as a sign of reception
into the visible Christian community retreats into the background; in that same ratio it becomes less and less a ceremony
of absolute necessity.-In this way it becomes explicable to us
why Christ did not himself baptize his apostles and the disciples who joined themselves to him during his earthly life,
and yet why his followers after him administered the rite.
They had been once for all openly acknowledged by Christ
as his disciples, had actually and visibly, as was demanded
in that time of the infancy of the Church for its confirmation
and advancement, received the Holy Spirit, and there had
been imparted to them by that Spirit all those miraculous
powers and gifts which distinguished that early period in the
history of the Church. Since they possessed the reality, they
needed not the external symbol, whether they had received, or
not, at an earlier period the baptism of John. For, whether
each of them had, or had not, confirmed his earlier preparation for entrance into the kingdom of God by the baptism of




212         RELATION OF THE BAPTISM OF JOHN
John or by that of the disciples of Christ, was of comparatively little importance; but it did import much whether each
had entered into the communion of the Spirit and of life with
Christ; and in whomsoever this was not evinced by other
facts, as was the case with the apostles and the first disciples
of Christ, upon such baptism had to be performed anew, but
it became in such a case an altogether different ceremony, the
proof of entrance internally and externally into the kingdom
of God. If, therefore, those who had at a previous time received the baptism of John or that of the disciples, received
also at a later period Christian baptism, we cannot with any
show of reason find therein any proof of the propriety of
repeating that initiatory rite; for it was not Christian'baptism
which was performed a second time in such instances of repetition; and, though the ceremony in its outward appearance
was in both cases the same, the signification and essential
character of the two were altogether different, and each was
independent of the other. Christian baptism, it is certain,
was never performed but once on any, and was never repeated.
To this view no objection that is valid can be urged from
what is said in Acts 19: 2-6. of the baptism of certain disciples of John at Ephesus. These had received the baptism of
John, probably on the occasion of their travelling up to Jerusalem to attend the Passover, and had heard from him and
believed the announcement that the Messiah. would shortly
appear and bring forgiveness of sins to all repentant hearts;
they had, moreover, beyond a doubt heard at a later period
that the Messiah had actually appeared, they had, perhaps,
even seen and heard him at some time during the yearly feast
at Jerusalem, and believed that he was the promised Messiah




TO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.            213
(a conclusion.which seems warranted by the fact that they are
in v. 1. called " disciples"); they might also have heard of his
death and his resurrection, and expected it may be, that he
would now, according to his declaration, soon establish his
kingdom before the eyes of all men, just as Christ's own disciples inquired of him after his resurrection whether he intended
then to found his kingdom (Acts: 6.); but that this kingdom was to be for the present wholly spiritual and to be
established by the working of the Holy Spirit in those that
believed, they had not the least conception. On this account
they answered Paul, when he asked them whether they had
yet received the Holy Spirit, that they knew of no such thing
as a Holy Spirit. They knew, perhaps, of a Holy Spirit of
God spoken of in the Old Testament, by means of which God
works upon the souls of men; but of the Holy Spirit, which
was first communicated to men through Christ's act of redemption and which brings them into immediate connection
with the Redeemer and Saviour of the world, they as yet
knew nothing. It was necessary, therefore, that they should
be made, by means of the appropriate external rite, the* true
disciples of Christ.  They were accordingly baptized with
Christian baptism; and they were at the same time endued,
by the laying on of the hands of the Apostle, as well morally
as outwardly and visibly, with those wonderful powers and
gifts which were accustomed at that time to accompany the
imbuing of the human soul with the Holy Ghost.
Less clear than this example is another which immediately
precedes (Acts 18: 24-28.). In this case, there came to
Ephesus, during the absence of Paul, a learned and eloquent
Alexandrian Jew who had likewise received the baptism of
John, who was, perhaps, acquainted also with the external




214         RELATION OF THE BAPTISM OF JOHN
events of the life of Jesus, and really recognized in him the
Messiah, since it was his custom to bear witness to these facts
in public; but the internal character of Christ and the significance of the work of the Messiah he did not as yet understand, and he knew nothing yet of the Holy Spirit which was
imparted to all believers.  For this reason, Aquila and Priscilla, two true disciples of the Lord who had continued residing for some time in Corinth in friendly intercourse with
Paul, took upon themselves the office of enlightening his
ignorance, and of disclosing to him more carefully and accurately than had yet been done the true way of the Lord, the
true signification of the appearance and ministry of the Messiah. Of nothing further than this does the narrative speak,
and we are not informed whether he received Christian baptism from them or not. It would seem that, because no' one
of the Apostles, through the medium of whom alone the gifts
of the Spirit appear to have been at that time capable of
being imparted, was then present, Apollos did not at this
period become a recipient of the rite; and we have no positive ahd direct evidence whether or not, subsequently to this,
he received the ceremony and at the same time the laying on
of hands from an Apostle.-It is possible that he never became
a recipient of the Christian rite; for, in the condition and
circumstances of the churches of that early time, such a case
might have easily occurred; and believers were not at that
period so much accustomed as they afterwards became, to look
rathey at the perfect completion of all external ceremonies
than to the truthfulness and sincerity of the inward Christian
life; and we have already seen that the outward sign of
baptism is by no means something essential to Christianity, but
that its essence always consists in the impartation of the Holy




TO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.            215
Spirit. That Apollos. was endowed with this is shown by the
manner in which his ministry in Corinth is represented (Acts
18: 27, 28.), by the manner in which Paul speaks of him,
calling him "brother" (1 Cor. ICt 12.), and by the fact that
the church at Corinth earnestly desired to see him after his
long-continued labors in its behalf, a part of the Corinthian
Christians having even united themselves so exclusively to him
that they rejected every other instructor (1 Cor. 1: 12.). As
regarded the possession of the Holy Spirit, therefore, Apollos,
was in fact a Christian, whether the external ceremony of
baptism was performed upon him or not, and whether he had
been put into possession of the miraculous powers of the
Spirit by the laying on of an Apostle's hands, or not. This
one fact, however, we must have fixed in the mind, that, if he
was not baptized,-and this must, from the silence of the history upon this point, always remain doubtful,-this rite was not
omitted because he had previously received the baptism of
John,-for whether he had done so or not was altogether
indifferent to the question of the propriety of his receiving
the Christian rite, as we have seen entirely to our satisfaction
in our examination of the preceding example,-but it was
omitted, if omitted at all, only because he showed by his life
and conduct that he was endowed with the Holy Spirit, the
impartation of which is not necessarily connected with the
external act of baptism, and the possession of which made
the superaddition of outward baptism, not indeed impracticable and impossible, but no longer necessary.
ANOTHER VIEW OF THESE RELATIONS.
What has been so far said respecting the relations existing
between the baptism of John, that administered by Christ's




216          RELATION OF THE BAPTISM OF JOHN
disciples, and the Christian ordinance, is translated directly
from. the German of Von Rohden, without the incorporation,
as in the other parts of the book, of additional matter. The
view which is here given by Von Rohden, though in many
respects correct, is not, we think, altogether correspondent
with the Scriptural representation. It needs, therefore, some
modification.
In order to estimate aright the connection which exists
between these baptismal ceremonies, it is necessary that we
first clearly understand what, according to New Testament
authority, is the nature of Christian baptism. It may be
stated in few words to be the immersion in water of a believer in
Christ, by a properly authorized administrator, in the name of
the Father, Son and Hioly Spirit (Matt. 28: 19., Mark 16:
16.) or in the name of Christ (Acts 8: 16., 19: 5.). This
and nothing else is the Christian ordinance. It is not, and
never was, as Von Rohden states, "the actual impartation of
all that salvation which had been obtained for men by the
life and death of Christ"; nor did it, as the same writer
further supposes, "include within itself the forgiveness of
sins," nor was it " a baptism in the Holy Spirit."  All this,
however, and more, was and is denoted by Christian baptism;
for the ceremony is a symbol of the regeneration of him to
whom it is administered (Jno. 3: 5, 7.); of his participation
in the divine life of Christ and in the promises which are
grounded upon the atonement which the Saviour has made
(Gal. 3: 27. coll. Rom. 6: 4., Col. 2: 12.); and bf the spiritual
union of its recipient with the other members of the Church
of Christ (1 Cor. 12: 13., Ephes. 4: 5., 5: 26., Gal. 3: 28,
and elsewhere ). This is what the ordinance denotes; but of
itself it does not, and never did produce, as an opus operatum,




TO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.               217
the effects which have been enumerated.  These blessings are
bestowed by the operation of the Holy Spirit upon the heart
of a believer, or by what is in the New Testament denominated in a figure the baptism of the Spirit,-to confer which is
the prerogative of Christ, and the object of his sufferings and
death. Whenever the external baptism of water and the
internal baptism of the Spirit unite, then and then alone we
have an example of such baptismal regeneration as is spoken
of in the New Testament (Titus 3: 5.).
Since in the days of the Apostolic Church the impartation
of the Spirit was usually coincident with, or rather immediately consequent upon, the reception of baptism; and since
the one implied the other, the implication being in a majority
of cases really correspondent with the reality, the immersion
itself, though only an outward symbol, is sometimes represented
in the New Testament, by metonymy,-a natural, and, in the
Scriptures especially, quite frequent figure of speech,-as the
direct agent by which regeneration is produced; though even
in these cases the connection usually shows that the real
efficacy of the ordinance is to be ascribed to the accompanying
operation of the Holy Spirit (cp. Titus 3: 5., " the washing of
regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost").-But, notwithstanding this, the baptism in water and the baptism in
the Holy Ghost were not the same operation; nor did the
one necessarily accompany the othe'r. The latter generally
succeeded the former, and was usually bestowed by the laying
on of the hands of an Apostle (Acts 8: 18., and elsewhere ).*
* The Spirit was not conferred upon Paul by the laying on of the hands of
another Apostle; but was received immediately from the Lord (Gal. 1: 12.).
How and when it was communicated we know not positively; for we are not
prevented by the representation in Acts 9: 17., from supposing that it was




218          RELATION OF RHE BAPTISM OF JOHN
In one instance at least, however, the baptism of tne Spirit
preceded, and was the warrant for the bestowment of the
baptism  of water (Acts 10: 47.).    Sometimes the two acts
were separated by a considerable interval of time as may be
proved from Acts 8: 14-17. directly, and as is implied in the
question put by Paul to the disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19: 2.).
Nay, even in Apostolic times, the baptism of water was sometimes conferred without the subsequent impartation of the
Spirit (Acts 8: 13., 18-23.).
It is the Spirit, then, and not baptism, which imparts the
divine life to the believer.  This impartation, indeed, is presupposed and symbolized by his immersion in water; but it is
not effected by it. What, then, is the effect which baptism
produces in and of itself?  Only this: it initiates its recipient
into the visible community of Christian believers.  Baptism,
therefore, as an external rite, an immersion into water in the
name of Christ, is nothing more or less than a rite of initiation into the Christian Church.  The import, the signification,
of the ordinance is something different and of more vital
interest: it is such as has been described.-Having determined the nature of the Christian rite, we are now prepared
to examine the relation which it bears to that of John and
to that administered by Christ's disciples.
The characteristics of the baptism  of John have already
been stated with sufficient distinctness.  It was, as Jerome
calls it, "a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,
that is, for their future remission, which was to be obtained by
the sanctification of Christ," the sins being remitted in hope
imparted to him before his baptism. The account, however, seems rather to
intimate that the Spirit was conferred simultaneously with the reception of
that ordinance.




TO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.                 219
merely, and on condition of reformation.  It was a baptism in
which its recipient professed a belief in the Messiah as about
to appear (elg IbY EQS46ayOV), but not in Jesus personally as
that Messiah already manifest in the flesh.* It was, therefore, not the same in its most important element as the
Christian ordinance; and was consequently, decided by an
Apostle to be insufficient to constitute one a member of the
Christian community (Acts 19: 4, 5.). This example is decisive of the whole question; for the disciples of John here
spoken of seem to have been comparatively well grounded in
biblical truth, and yet, having received only the baptism of
John, they were adjudged by Paul not to be in a state which
was consistent with the reception on their part of the Holy
Spirit.
The case of Apollos (Acts 18: 24-28.), is in all important
respects similar to that of these disciples; like them     he
"knew   only the baptism  of John"; but he appears to have
been better instructed than they "in the way of the Lord".
Judging from what was done in the latter case, we may infer
that Apollos was baptized by Aquila, as the Ephesian disciples were by Paul; though we are not informed in so many
words of the fact, being told only that the way of God was
expounded unto him more perfectly (v. 26.). There was
no necessity for mentioning expressly that he was baptized
anew, this time in the name of the Lord Jesus; for this, of
* Matthies (Baptismatis Expositio, p. 86-88.), supposes that John, after his
recognition of Jesus as the Messiah, baptized directly with reference to Jesus
in person; but this view is contradicted by all the subsequent history of the
Baptist. Had such been the fact, the dispute mentioned in Jno. 3: 25. could
never have arisen. The supposition, moreover, comes in direct conflict with
what Paul says of John's baptism (Acts 19: 4, 5.).




220          RELATION OF THE BAPTISM OF JOHN
course, is pre-supposed. Such is the general opinion of biblical critics; but Meyer and De Wette think differently, supposing, with Von Rohden, that at this early stage in the history of the Church the ordinance may have been omitted;
but such a supposition is, on many accounts, quite improbable.
We are rather to rank this among numerous other cases
recorded in the New Testament, where the belief of the converts to Christianity, or their addition to the Church, is alone
mentioned, their baptism  being taken for granted, because
it was well understood by all that without the reception of
that rite no one could become a member of the Christian community.-No doubt, too, Apollos received the baptism of the
Holy Spirit; not, however, it is probable, by the laying on,
at a subsequent period, of the hands of Paul in Corinth, as
Olshausen supposes, but directly from  the fountain-head,
without human interposition. —We have no positive ground
for concluding that his case differs in any important particular from that of the Ephesian disciples. He must, accordingly, have met with substantially the same treatment
on being admitted as a true member of the Christian
community.
Our view of the connection of John's baptism with the
Christian rite, it will be seen, does not differ essentially from
that of Von Rohden. With regard, however, to the relation
which the baptism administered by Christ's disciples (Jno. 3:
22. 26., 4: 1, 2.) bears to the Christian ordinance, there is a
much wider difference in our opinions.-In few words, our view
is the following:-John baptized with reference to a Messiah
that was yet to come. The disciples on the other hand
baptized with reference to Jesus, the Messiah already come;
and by this rite they initiated into the Christian community




TO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.               221
which was forming around Christ as its central-point, the
Christian Church in fact, the foundation of which was laid
when our Lord began to select his Apostles.    This Church
did not, it is true, exhibit itself as such in its full power and
glory until the outpouring of the Spirit upon the day of Pentecost; but still it existed, Christ himself being witness
(Matt. 18: 17. coll. 16: 18.), feeble indeed in Its beginnings
but yet containing the germ of mighty things.
This baptism was in all respects, save perhaps, its direct
internal significancy, the same as that administered by the
Apostles on the day of. Pentecost; for both rites were based
upon repentance and belief in Christ Jesus, and both initiated into the Christian Church. Those who had received
it needed not to have another baptism performed upon them
before they could be made partakers of the Spirit; for, as we
have seen, even in the confessedly Christian rite, the baptism
of the Spirit was not a necessary part of the immersion in
water, but was in fact a separate and distinct operation which
was in general, though not always, attendant upon the Christian ordinance.  Without water baptism, it could not, except
in particular cases, be conferred; and even when water
baptism  had preceded, it was not invariably bestowed.Even in respect to internal significancy, however, the rite
which was administered by the disciples may have been the
same as that performed by them afterwards as Apostles;
for it is not impossible, nay, it is rather probable, that it
was understood by them and by those to whom they administered it as symbolizing that baptism of the Spirit which,
according to John's testimony, the Messiah was to perform.*: Matthies (Bapt. Expos. p. 57, Note) contends that the disciples actually
baptized in the Spirit (ev r5'rvev/iarT); but this is impossible, even sup




222           RELATION OF THE BAPTISM OF JOHN
The rite in question was performed indeed by Christ's
disciples; but it was not without his sanction, according to
the representation of John the evangelist (3:22.). Jesus
did not baptize in person, because, perhaps, being the Lord
and king of the theocracy, it would have been unbecoming
his dignity to administer the rite with his own hands. -Neither was it necessary that he should do so; for his disciples
were fully qualified for the task.-But, how were they qualified? According to Clement of Alexandria (Hypotyp. lib.
5.), they were fitted for it by baptism received from Jesus
himself when they were admitted to his fellowship; but,
notwithstanding that the expression "though Jesus baptized
not" (Jno. 4: 2.) may be limited in its reference to this particular occasion, and does not, consequently, compel us to
suppose that our Lord never administered the ordinance at
any time or to any person, yet this traditional testimony of
Clement's cannot well be founded on truth; for, had Jesus
himself baptized, it is hard to explain how the fact could
have been passed without notice by some one of the evangelists. They were qualified for the task, we should rather
say, by being the chosen Apostles of Christ. They needed
ever after this no water baptism; for the baptism of the
Spirit which they, in common with the whole infant Church
as then existing in one company in Jerusalem, received on the
memorable day of Pentecost, fully supplied all their deficiencies and prepared them for the work of evangelizing the
world.
It is likely, as Von Rohden thinks, that after leaving the
vicinity of the Jordan the disciples ceased baptizing; not,
posing, what is not true, that the external Christian rite is itself immersion in
the Spirit; for the Holy Spirit had not yet vivified the Church (Jno. 7: 39.)




TO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.                     223
however, for want of facilities for performing the rite, bat
because it was not Christ's intention to have many initiated
into the newly-established Church until after his death and
the actual bestaowment of the Spirit.      He preferred preparing
the way for the labors of the Apostles, laying the foundation
upon which they were afterwards to raise the superstructure
of the theocracy.     This he could do by teaching those who
resorted to him   for instruction in the relations in which they
already lived, and without incorporating them formally into
his theocratic organization.
NOTE.-The foregoing chapter.on the " Relation of the Baptism of John to
Christian Baptism," as far as the bottom of p. 215, is translated, without addition, directly from Von Rohden. It was thought best, upon the whole, to
make no alteration in this portion of his Treatise; although the views expressed in it,-particularly as regards the relation which the Baptism administered by Christ's disciples (Jno. 3: 22, 26; 4: 1, 2.) bears to what is universally admitted to be Christian Baptism, and as regards the efficacy of the
Christian rite, and its connection with the forgiveness of sin,-are not correspondent with the sentiments of the Translator: The doctrine of Von Rohden
upon these points is distinctly dissented from by the Translator in the latter
part of the chapter, under the heading " Another View of these Relations."
It did not seem proper to do more than this in a book which professes to
present " the whole of the treatise of Von Rohden."
In holding that the Baptism of John was not identical with Christian Baptism, though the same in outward form, the Translator and Von Rohden agree
in sentiment. No ecclesiastical writer, from the time of the Apostles to that
of the Reformation, has expressed a contrary opinion. All who have spoken
on the subject, represent the two rites as different and. distinct ceremonies.
And no modern biblical critic of eminence thinks otherwise. The weight of
evidence tending to prove a difference in the signification of the two ordinances,
is too strong to be resisted. If the passage in Acts (19: 1-6.) which represents
them as not identical, were wholly wanting, John's own testimony.would
abundantly prove their diversity, "and indeed essential diversity."  Outwardly, that is, as to form, the two rites were the same; in signification they
were different.




224               JOHN'S IMPRISONMENT.
PART      FIFTH.
CLOSE OF THE BAPTIST'S MINISTRY.
CHAPTER I.
JOHN'S IMPRISONMENT.
THE evangelist John, as we have seen, has alone given
us information respecting that papt of the Baptist's ministry
which was prosecuted after the public appearance of Christ.
The other evangelists appear, on the other hand, to intimate
that John was imprisoned by Herod immediately after the
baptism of Jesus, and that it was this very act of violence
which induced the latter to make his. first journey, spoken
of in Jno. 1: 44. ff., into Galilee (cp. Matt. 4  12., Mark 1:
14.). In Luke (3: 19, 20.) the imprisonment of John is
evidently mentioned only by way of anticipation, because the
writer wished to mention here at once and in connection all
that he intended to say respecting the Baptist. That he did
not intend to follow any historical order is made clear by the
fact that he reverts, immediately after his observation respecting the imprisonment of the Baptist, to the baptism which he
had performed on Christ, and relates nothing further regarding his subsequent fortunes and death.-With these representations, and especially with those given by Matthew and
Mark, what the evangelist John relates to us in 3: 23, 24.,
appears to come into direct conflict; that even after Christ
had returned from his first journey into Galilee, John was




JOHN'S IMPRISONMENT.              225
still engaged in baptizing; and that Apostle even appears,
by mentioning expressly that John was not yet cast into
prison, to have intentionally forewarned his readers against
the erroneous opinion to the contrary propagated by the
other three evangelists.-What, now, have we to think
of this narrative, and how must we clear away the difficulty?
The easiest and most satisfactory expedient which we can
adopt, is evidently to suppose that it was not the first journey to Galilee (Jno. 1: 44. ff.), but the second (Jno. 4: 3.)
which was prompted by the imprisonment of the Baptist; in
favor of which view in particular is the fact that John himself
(4: 1.) assigns as'the reason of this second journey the
knowledge which Jesus had that the Pharisees had. heard that
he was making more disciples than the Baptist. Wherefore
could this be the ground of Christ's leaving so hastily those
regions, if he did not think that he had reason to suspect
some act of violence from the hands of the Pharisees; and on
what could this fear have been more rationally based, than
on the example of bold and violent despotism which he had
before his eyes in the imprisonment of the Baptist? For the
first journey to Galilee (Jno. 1: 44. ff.), on the other hand,
no such motive is assigned: Jesus appears to have gone
thither at that time with the intention of giving the first
proof of his divine power and glory to his friends and his near
acquaintances in the land of his youth, and to collect here his
first disciples, at a distance from the injurious influences of the
Pharisees. The narrative of John moves on in this chapter in
such a manner, step by step as it were, after the fashion of a
diary, that, since the imprisonment of John could not have
been to him,-he having been one of his disciples,-of little




226                JOHN;S IMPRISONMENT.
importance, he must have made express mention of it, had it
occurred at this time; instead of doing so, however, he speaks
out in 3: 24. expressly against this idea, and testifies that
John still baptized in the Jordan at the same time with Jesus,
after the latter had returned from Galilee and after the feast
of the Passover had been finished at Jerusalem   (Jno. 2:
13. fi.).
We are, Therefore, obliged to suppose that the other three
evangelists either knew nothing at all of the first journey into
Galilee, together with the miracle that was wrought at the
marriage in Cana, the return to Jerusalem to attend the Passover, and the expulsion of the sellers of merchandise from the
temple and the conversation with Nicodemus which occurred
in that city; or that they were not sufficiently acquainted
with these events to give a narrative of them in their Gospels;
and that, therefore, overleaping this period altogether, they
began their representation of the ministry of Jesus with the
second journey that he made into Galilee, which was occasioned by the imprisonment of the Baptist.
When we consider the form and nature of the Gospels,which are not by any means constructed upon the plan of
registering with the greatest precision and scientific exactness, in its proper succession and chronological order, every
single occurrence in the life of the Redeemer, but are meant
to represent to us in bold outlines an exciting picture of his
life and acts,-this supposition is encompassed with the less
difficulty; especially since Jesus was, at this early period in
his ministry, but little known, and had but few Apostles, who
either were for the most part first chosen upon his second
journey (cp. Matt. 4: 18-22., Mark 1: 16-20.), or because
now for the first time his constant attendants, and since this




JOHN'S IMPRISONMENT.              221
whole first journey to Galilee and back thence to Jerusalem
and to the Jordan might have been accomplished within the
space of a few weeks.
The imprisonment of the Baptist is narrated only incidentally
by all three of the evangelists. Luke, as we have'already
seen, barely mentions the fact, and with it closes his account
of the ministry of John before the public appearance of Jesus.
Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, introduce the occurrence in connection with the course of their narrative respecting the labors and influence of Christ, while they are mentioning (Matt. 14: 1, 2., Mark 6: 14-16.) the various opinions
which were in circulation respecting the person of Jesus.
Among these opinions one was that Jesus was John risen
from  the dead, which, according to M[atthew. and Mark,
Herod, who without doubt was reproved and stung by his
conscience for the murder of a man whom he acknoWledged to
be just, himself expressed; but which, according to Luke, who
also mentions these ideas respecting Jesus (9: 1-9.), was held
only by the people, while Herod did not express himself so
pointedly and definitely, but only wished to see him who had
now a greater number of the people in attendance upon him
than at an earlier period John had,-in which desire it is quite
likely that there was included a sort of, wavering conjecture
that Jesus might perhaps be the Baptist himself upraised from
the dead.-On this occasion, then, when they make mention
of the death of the Baptist, Matthew and Mark subjoin a sup.
plementary notice respecting the motive of his imprisonment
and execution, the latter evangelist, who appears to have had
the most exact information on the subject, giving the narrative
most at length. John passes over the fact in silence, because
he takes it for granted as known to his readers from the ac



228                 JOIHN'S IMPRISONMENT.
counts of the two evangelists who had written of it before his
Gospel was published.
The following is given to us as the motive which prompted'to his imprisonment:-Herod the Great had by Aristobulus,
one of his sons, a granddaughter named Herodias'whom he
gave in marriage to his son, her uncle, Herod Philip, who,
destined at first to be his father's successor, but afterwards
disinherited by him, remained a private man, whilst the other
three sons of Herod, Archelaus, Herod Antipas (the person
here mentioned by the evangelists), and Philip, —whose name
was the same as that of his eldest brother, but who was probably distinguished from him by some other special appellation,-divided amongst themselves, as tetrarchs, the greater
part of their father's kingdom (cp. Part III., Chap. I.). The
ambitious and sensual Herodias, preferring a tetrarch to a
private man for her husband, persuaded her uncle, Herod
Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, to put away his lawful wife, a daughter of Aretas, the Arabian king, and to marry
her, the eloping and unfaithful wife of his brother.*  Such an
incestuous union (cp. Levit. 18: 16.) and, according to Luke
3: 19., at the same time many other wicked acts of Herod,
John, the public preacher of repentance, could not let pass
unreproved: he who had lifted up the voice of condemnation
and warning against Pharisees and against members of the
Sanhedrim, could not be deterred by fear from declaring freely
~ This iniquitous proceeding of Herod's produced a war between him and his
father-in-law, which, however, did not break out till a year before the death
of Tiberius (in the year of Rome 790, A.D. 37.). In this war Herod was totally
defeated and his army cut to pieces by Aretas; a calamity which the Jews in
general attributed to the vengeance of Goil, inflicted upon Herod on account
of his treatment of the Baptist (Jos. Ant. 5. 1-3.).




JOHNS IMPRISONMENT.             229
and publicly that it was. not right for Herod to have his
brother's wife; and we may well suppose that he reproved
this wickedness with by no means soft and honeyed words.
We are not obliged to suppose that the Baptist went with
this express intention to the palace of Herod-to such a work
had lie not been called; and we find no proof that it was his
custom to interfere in this way with family affairs, or to seek
out particular individuals for special reproof. There is no
objection to our supposing, what is not so improbable, that
Herod travelling on some occasion in his own land in the
neighborhood of John, had gone out of his way, together with
his attendant escort, in order to see this remarkable man, and
that on this opportunity the Baptist had addressed to him
these unwelcome words of reproof.-We are not obliged, however, to resort to either of these conjectures; for it does not contradict our narrative, if John spoke only in a general way publicly before the people respecting this improper act of Herod's,
since what he said could not easily be kept concealed from
the king. The direct form of the words, " it is not lawful for
thee to have thy brother's wife", dCes, it is true, seem to indicate that the remark was made by John in person to Herod;
but we are not compelled to press so strongly upon the expression; for the words might have been reported to Herod by a
third person in that form which they would have taken if they
had been addressed to him in person.
Mark represents the matter as if Herodias had been the
chief agent in producing the imprisonment of the Baptist and
the cause of the hastening of his execution, while Herod himself remained rather passive in the transaction, and in the
hours of his better emotions even gladly listened to the discourses of John: Matthew, on the other hand, speaks of




230                JOHN'S IMPRISONMENT.
Herod as the prime author of his imprisonment, and as being
eagerly desirous to put him to death as soon as possible thereafter. We may readily conceive how an ambitious and sensual
woman like Herodias, feeling herself wounded to the quick by
the monitory reproaches of John, must, in the glowing bitterness of her hate, have sworn destruction against the mal, and
on that account have urged on her husband by all the arts of
coquetry to throw the Baptist into prison, and, after she had
obtained this request, have ceased not to seek his execution.
Herod, the slave of sensuality, was no doubt often tempted by
her and often incited by his own wishes to remove the bold
reprover out of the way, as Matthew expressly informs us
(v. 5.); but the weak prince was constantly kept in check by
the fear which he had of the people, who regarded John as a
prophet, and who might have risen in insurrection at his cruel
execution. Add to this, moreover, that, whenever the seductive arts of Herodias had not drawn him within the circle of
their influence, and he looked at the matter more fairly and
with more consideration, his own better judgment which still
preserved with him something of the feeling of right and
wrong, spoke out in favor of John: he recognized in him a
just and holy man, and often he did not hesitate to allow
him the privilege of conversation, nay, he even sometimes
listened to him as a counsellor. Thus vacillating between a
just regard for John and the desire to oblige the blood-thirsty
will of his wife, the weak man continued for a long time undecided, until at last the seductive arts of Herodias gained the
victory.
The historian Josephus, when he relates this occurrence
(Archeol, 18. 5. 2.), assigns a different reason for the imprisonment of the Baptist; that Herod was fearful test John, since




JOHN'S IMPRISONMENT.              231
he had so many adherents among the people, might at length
excite an insurrection, which he sought to prevent by putting
him in confifiement. We see at once, however, that this was
only the nominal ground, the pretext which was given out
in public; for, since he was obliged to assign to the people
some reason for having thrown into prison a man so beloved
by them and so revered as the Baptist, and since the true
reason, the just judgment and reproof by John of the incestuous marriage of the prince, could not well be declared, he was
compelled to seek for some other ground, be it tenable or not,
in justification of his conduct; and fear of disturbance among
the populace seemed to him the most welcome and the most
likely to answer his end.
Guarding himself in this way against the anger of the
people, Herod awaited a moment when John, who frequently
went from one bank of the river Jordan to the other, was
found in his territory in Perea, had him arrested and, as
Josephus relates, brought to Machaerus, a castle on the east
side of the Dead Sea, in the southern part of Perea, where he,
therefore, was himself probably residing at the time; at least,
the Baptist must, according to the narratives of Matthew and
Mark, have been kept imprisoned in the immediate neighborhood of Herod; and it is rendered the more probable that
he was confined near the place of Herod's residence at the
time by the fact that Antipas had a palace in the neighborhood (Jos. Bell. Jud. 2. 4. 2.); not, however, as some think,
because war was being waged at that time between Herod and
Aretas, king of Arabia,-the former residing as near as possible to the boundaries of his territory on the side towards Arabia, in order that he might arrange and direct all things
connected with the war the more readily in his own proper




232                   JOHN S IMPRISONMENT.
person, —for this war did not break out till after the execution of the Baptist.
Tile confinement of John could not have possibly been very
rigid, since Herod had been induced to decide upon it contrary to his own better inclination, and, according to thl testimony of Mark      (v. 20.) took pleasure in conversing with
him  himself; and also, perhaps, on account of the people,
who perchance would not have quietly endured a cruel incarceration of the honored Baptist, and whom        Herod feared so
much that he.did not venture of his own will to complete
his execution.    Without question, therefore, we' are at liberty to conclude that John still had free intercourse with
his disciples, many of whom must indeed have followed him
in his imprisonment.*: According to Josephus (Antiq. 18. 5. 2.) the Baptist was imprisoned by
Herod because he feared that John might excite an insurrection. Part of the
account given by the Jewish historian will be found on p. 111: the rest is as follows: "And the others flocking around him,-for they were much delighted
in listening to his words,-Herod, fearing lest by his great influence among the
people, he might excite an insurrection,-for they seemed ready to do anything
at his advice,-thinks it much better to prevent him from creating any disturbance, by removing him before-hand out of the way, rather than to have to
repent when he has fallen into difficulties on account of a revolt. Having,
therefore, been made a prisoner on account of-the suspicion of Herod, John,
being sent to Machbrus, the castle before mentioned, is there put to death."
The reason assigned by Josephus for the imprisonment of the Baptist, was, it
would seem, something more than " a pretext;" and Vop Rohden is wrong,
probably, in supposing it to be only " the nominal ground" of his arrest,
(p. 231.): it was, it is likely, the general ground, or state reason, of the imprisonment; while the reason assigned by the Evangelists was its immediate
cause. The two accounts are perfectly harmonious. See Prof. Gams, Joh.
d. T. im Gefangnisse, pp. 40-45.




THE BAPTIST'S DOUBTS IN PRISON.       233
CHAPTER II.
THE BAPTIST'S DOUBTS IN PRISON, AND HIS MISSION OF
INQUIRY TO JESUS.
How did this occurrence work upon the feelings of the
Baptist, unto whom, as a free son of the desert, imprisonment
must have been particularly hateful?  This question leads us
to take a glance at the previous mental formation of the Baptist's character. Initiated early into the Old Testament prophecies, in reflection upon the contrariety which existed between
the idea and the actuality of the kingdom of God, he attained
to the lively conviction that a Messiah must shortly appear.
Many single circumstances in his education and occurring in
general in the time of his youth, confirmed him yet more in
this conviction, and induced him to make still deeper researches
into the divine prophecies, whose sense he, supported and enlightened by the Holy Spirit, understood better and knew
how to estimate better than the greater part of his acquaintances, nay, better than all his associates, and even better
than the most enlightened and pious worthies among his
people. Since he could not, until the prophecies had been
fulfilled, fully comprehend their meaning, nor explain what he
found' to be seemingly contradictory in these Old Testament
predictions, there must have arisen within him many an obscure conception and much that was heterogeneous and arbitrary in his Messianic expectations; in particular, must his
ideas respecting a suffering and a reigning Messiah have been
brought with difficulty to conform to the nature of his hopes;




234          THE BAPTIST'S DOUBTS IN PRISON,
and we may well suppose that, although he sought to explain
to himself and to realize that' the Messiah must, in accordance
with his designs of bringing salvation to men, pass through
sufferings (whether he conceived also that he must undergo
the pains of death, must, as we have previously remarked,
remain undecided), in order to gain a complete victory over
all his enemies and to attain to perfect glory; yet must he
most frequently and with most delight have pictured to himself the image of a mighty monarch enthroned in royalty and
splendor;. but still, whenever his mind reverted to the quiet
and humble appearance of the Son of Man, those other less
pleasing rem'embrances of the suffering servant of God must
have been renewed within his soul.
Since, therefore, he held fast to both opinions, that, on the
one hand, the kingdom of the Messiah was to be in reality a
spiritual dominion which would bring forgiveness to repentant
sinners, and yet that, on the other, it would reveal itself in
earthly might and glory,-which latter revelation is promised
to us only in connection with the second corning of the Lord,
but which John could not conceive of as separate from the
first advent,-there was formed within the mind of the Baptist
the firm expectation that the Messiah would begin his ministry by some outward earthly act, and would then speedily
attain, after a brief contest, to royalty and to earthly power
and dignity; and this expectation reflected itself, as we have
seen, in all his connected utterances. He had been called by
God to preach repentance, to announce the coming Messiah,
and to bear witness of him when he had come; and this office
he performed with the greatest conscientiousness and humility
The Messiah is revealed to him; he puts confidence in the
revelation, and testifies aloud and freely that this Jesus is he




AND HIS MISSION OF INQUIRY TO JESUS.     235
that was to come: so long as-God does not call him away, and
he receives no intimation to discontinue his ministry, he labors
on joyfully, preparing still the way for the Messiah, and pointing others to him; he is gladdened, therefore, in observing
the constantly increasing number of the adherents of Jesus, and
his hope grows strong that now without delay the decisive step
will be taken by the Lord which will represent him'publicly to
the people as the promised son of David and the Messiah, and
will summon around him all who believe in his dignity, the
Baptist himself as well as the rest, in order to begin in com-.
mon the struggle against the opposing power of sin and of
the world. But, alas, for his expectations in the midst of the
blooming of his hopes, in the midst of his eager longings and
strong convictions, he is suddenly arrested by Herod, that
servant of sin, and cast into prison.
John's first feeling on being imprisoned must have been yet
more indignant anger against those sinners whom he had so
courageously reproved, and who now, as if in anticipation of
the approaching struggle, sought to render powerless the most
valiant champion of the simple truth. The next thought,
without doubt, was this:-the kingdom of the Lord will now
without delay break in upon the world, and after a short
struggle with the powers of sin will come forth from victory
in yet greater effulgence; and all the just will rule in joy and
honor with their Lord: my imprisonment can only be short
and transitory, for the Messiah will now hasten to establish
his kingdom in order to free his faithful witness and confessor.
But just here was his hope doomed to destruction; here was
to begin the hard trial which God had resolved to bring upon
him in order to lead him to perfection. Hitherto all had gone
in accordance with his wish; all his expectations had been




236          THE BAPTIST'S DOUBTS IN PRISON,
answered; the Messiah whom he had announced, had ap.
peared, had been revealed unto him, and had already begun
to collect numerous adherents around his person. What,
therefore, could be more clear than that he would now speedily
declare himself to be the theocratic king? The frequent opportunities which he had enjoyed of seeing the divine person
of the Redeemer, could not have failed to have increased still
more his confidence in him; while the consequences of his own
ministry, and the divine inspiration which was manifested in
and attended upon his public labors had hitherto elevated
John, so to speak, above himself. Now, however, all these
props were to fall away, and in their stead opposition and
trouble were to assail him from every side; in order that, as
he had been, so far, the mere organ of the divine will, an
instrument in the hand of God, so now he might by internal struggles in his own heart, purify and complete himself,
might work out from within himself, by his own reflection and
by his sufferings, a firm belief in God and in his ambassador,
who had up to this time been pressed upon his attention solely
by means and by events from without; and might with humility and entire resignation to God be led to acknowledge that
his ways are not as our ways, and that as high as the heaven
is above the earth so high are his th6ughts above our thoughts.
The Scriptures afford us a glimpse of this serious and hard
struggle within the breast. of John: we see in the mournful
pieture of the imprisonment of the Baptist which is unrolled
before our eyes, no longer as heretofore the divinely inspired
prophet John, but only the weak man John, who must struggle, despair, contend, as every other sorrowful and desponding
human heart.
Since now the imprisonment of the Baptist, which, as we




AND HIS MISSION OF INQUIRY TO JESUS.      23'
have seen, was brought about by the promptings of private
passion, could not have been very rigid, he had opportunity of
inquiring from his disciples what was happening in the outer
world, and, in particular, how stood matters with Jesus. With
what anxious desire must he have longed, each time he made
the inquiry, to hear the reply: " He has at length openly announced himself as the Messianic king, and has entered publicly upon the struggle; the day of his victory and of thy
reception into his kingdom, is at hand."  But a day, a week,
one month after another, passed away, and yet he heard.
nothing of the kind; on the contrary, he received reports
only of discourses and teaching on the part of Jesus, of miracles of healing and of raising from the dead; so that the
Baptist was at last compelled to come to the conclusion that
Christ had in truth no intention of creating a political party,
but sought rather the contrary, even opposing himself to every
attempt of the kind on the part of others. One of two things,
therefore, must John surrender-he must resign either the
hope of an earthly Messianic reign, which appeared to him so
firmly grounded on the promises of the Old Testament, or his
recognition of Jesus as the Messiah, which was on its side not
less powerfully accredited by the divine testimony which had
been given at his baptism. How must his soul have wavered,
and how frequently must his mind have been carried now in
this, now in that, direction! Strive as he might to prevent it,
the harassing doubt would still keep rising in his mind, until
at last the testimony of the Old Testament appeared more
trustworthy and more credible than that single divine witness
given to himself, which might after all have been based upon
an illusion. Every circumstance, therefore, however insignificant, which could in any possible mapner throw doubt upon




238          THE BAPTIST'S DOUBTS IN PRISON,
the divine origin of that testimony, was sought out and unconsciously magnified in his mind, until at length his decision partook of the coloring of his wishes, and doubt in the Messianic
dignity of Jesus gained the preponderance in his soul. It may
also be supposed that his disciples, who from the first had
much more fleshly conceptions of the Messiah than himself,
attacked now more vigorously than ever the wavering mind of
their master, asserting that Jesus could not possibly be the
Messiah; while his own desire to become liberated from the
mournful condition which, pressing upon him with its whole
weight, now burdened his troubled soul, at last fully turned
for a time the scale of his opinion, and he came to the conclusion that he was mistaken in Jesus.
Notwithstanding all this, however, he did not turn completely hopeless away from him, as might easily and would
probably have taken place in the case of another person; but
a reaction speedily occurred in his mind in favor of the Messiah, when he began again to reflect upon the divine testimony
which he had received respecting him; so that John came
finally to the determination to inquire of Jesus himself what
opinion he must hold with regard to his dignity, and what he
must expect as the result of his labors. It is not surprising
that he adopted this resolution; for there yet was present to
his soul in all its clearness the image of Jesus as that of a
man who was pure and spotless in word and deed, such as he
had himself been conscious at an earlier period that Jesus was
(whence his touching refusal to baptize him), and such as he
had afterwards acknowledged him to be in the hearing of his
disciples; and he was convinced that Jesus would tell him
nothing but the simple truth in reply to his questionings. This
was the only means which he could adopt to remove his hesita



AND HIS MISSION OF INQUIRY TO JESUS.      239
tion and doubt. When, therefore, the Lord had probably come
front Nain, where he had raised a young man from the dead
(cp. Luke: 11-17.), into the neighborhood of Bethany (Bethabara) on the other side of the Jordan, and was consequently
not far distant from the castle Machlerus;* since the conviction that Jesus did not purpose to found a political kingdom
had now been made almost a certainty in the Baptist's mind
by the information which his disciples brought to him respecting Christ's ministry, and in particular, perhaps, by the sending out of the Apostles into the cities in order to teach, but
not to excite the people, nor to produce political commotions
(Matt. 10.),-John sent two of his disciples to Christ with
the question, "Art thou he that should [is to] come" (6 EZ',usvog),
-an expression by the use of which John shows clearly that
he expected to recognize the Messiah by some earthly act, for
only in such an expectation could Christ be spoken of as one
that was yet to come,-" or do we [shall we] look for another?"
(Matt. 11: 3., Luke 7: 20.)-The whole occurrence is narrated in Matt. 11: 2-19, and Luke: 18-35.
This struggle in the soul of John and this public expression
of it are in truth so natural and so easily explained, that one
cannot help being surprised to discover that they have given
to some grounds for cavil and objection against the historical
truth of the narrative. Let one only revert in thought to the
greatest heroes in the faith, as well of more ancient as of recent times, and he will perceive that they, after having publicly
testified and preached with the utmost willingness and distinctness of the Redeemer, of his doctrine and his work, and
* The weight of evidence drawn from the connection of the New Testament
narratives of this transaction, is rather in favor of our Lord's being at this time
in the vicinity of Capernaum, in Galilee.




240             THE BAPTIST'S DOUBTS IN PRISON,
after they have experienced in their own hearts unnumbered
times the conviction of the truth and of the wonderful power
of the doctrines which they proclaimed, have notwithstanding
fallen at other times into doubts and mental struggles respecting Christ, and have had to betake themselves in prayer to
God for the enlightenment and confirmation of their faith.
Let every believer examine himself, and see whether similar
doubts have never risen within his own soul, with which h6
has had to struggle hard and long. Beyond a question every
one will discover in his own history many such occasions when
his faith has wavered and needed strengthening from on
high.*-In estimating the character of such great witnesses
and mediators of the truth, one is ofted led into error by viewing them only in the light of their public life, in which are
represented only the power and confidence of the faith which
they have attained by such internal struggles, but not the
history of these struggles themselves.     And with regard to
biblical characters, in particular, have we been accustomed to
conceive of them   only in their purity and to estimate them
* Matthesius relates the following anecdotes of Luther, which illustrate very
forcibly this melancholy truth. We translate from Von Rohden's treatise:
"On a certain occasion a woman complained to him that she could no longer
have faith.' Do you no longer remember,' inquired the Doctor,'the creed of
your childhood V' When she had recited this correctly and with an air of devotion, the Doctor asked,' Do you consider this true'' The woman replied in
the affirmative.' Truly, my good woman,' responded the Doctor,' your belief
is stronger than mine: I must pray daily for the increase of my faith.' On re
ceiving this reply the woman thanked him, and departed in peace to her home.Antonius Musa, minister in Rochlitz, said to me that he once lamented to the
Doctor that he could not believe himself what he preached to others.' God be
praised and thanked,' answered the Doctor,'that this is also the case with
others; I thought it was true of myself alone.' This consolation I could never
forget my whole life long."




AND HIS MISSION OF INQUIRY TO JESUS.     24]
only by their shining qualities: we cite them before all others
as models of piety and of confiding, joyous faith, and this, in
truth, they are; but there is not one among them, respecting
whom we have received more particular and circumstantial information, on whom we cannot discover some stain; and for
this reason it is that the most striking and magnificent de
scriptions which we have of pious and pure conduct refer us
at the end to him on whom alone there was neither spot nor
wrinkle, who alone could say, "Who can convict me of sin?"
Our own internal Christian experience will give us the best
explanation of the rise and operation of these doubts upon
the mind of John the Baptist. " In the life of every believer,"
says Olshausen,* "are to be found moments of temptation in,
which even the most firm conviction will be shaken to its
foundation: nothing is more natural than to conceive such
moments or periods of internal darkness and abandonment by
the Spirit of God, even in the life of John.... In his gloomy
prison at Machaerus, a dark hour, no doubt, surprised the
man of God, an hour in which he was struck with the quiet
unobtrusive ministry of Christ, and wherein he fell into
internal conflict concerning the experiences he had heretofore
had. This is clearly pointed out in the words of Jesus:'Blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in me',-words
which contain at the same time censure and consolation. For
truly it would have been a sad thing for the poor captive, had
he not stood firm in the hour of temptation, had he really
taken offence; but in this case, he was merely tempted to it;
and blessed is the man that endureth temptation (Jas. 1: 12.).
But inasmuch as there is no victory for sinful man without a
~ Bib. Comment. on the Gospels, Eng. transl. Edinburgh edit. 1847, vol
II., p. 53, 54




242           THE BAPTIST'S DOUBTS IN PRISON,
struggle, hence was likewise the Baptist destined to pass
through this struggle. But that he endured this struggle,
and vanquished, is manifest from the very circumstance of his
inquiringof Jesus himself. That he inquired of him in this
manner shows his state of temptation; but that he, in his state
of temptation, inquires of no one but himself [Jesus], manifests his faith in him; especially inasmuch as the free life of
the Redeemer, so very different from his own, must have appeared something very astonishing in the sight of this most
austere preacher of repentance (cp. Matt. 11: 19.).-The
question of John is nothing but another:'Lord, I believe,
help thou my unbelief;' and this prayer was granted by our
gracious Lord. Whosoever asks of God, whether he be God;
whosoever asks of the Saviour, whether he be the Saviour, is
in the right path to overcome every temptation; it is only thus
that he can ascertain it with certainty. Hence it is that the
words of Jesus concerning John which follow (v. 7. if.) form
no contradiction to the supposition that he sent the messengers to Jesus in an hour of severe temptation.  Even thereby
did he prove that he was no reed to be shaken by a breath
of wind, but that he was firm as the foundation of the earth
in his faith, and that he withstood the effects of every tempest.' But if there be no tempest, how can firmness prove its
strength? It was therefore in the time of his greatness, when
the fullness of the Spirit dwelt in him, that God made use of
the Baptist for his purposes to serve humanity; in the time
of his littleness or poverty, and when forsaken, it was then
that God perfected him within himself."*
* The translation of Olshausen's Gospels here quoted from was made by
Dr. Sergius Loewe, himself a German. The version is upcn the whole a good
one; but it bears everywhere upon its face proof of its being the production of




.ND HIS MISSION OF INQUIRY TO JESUS.            243
Comparing the question put by John (Matt. 11: 2.) with
the answer returned    by Christ (v. 6.) we cannot, without
doing violence to the evangelical narrative, do otherwise than'
conclude that John really entertained for a time doubts
respecting the Messiahship of Jesus; though, of course, these
doubts never reached so far as the positive conviction that he
was not in truth the expected theocratic king.       This doubt
was the product of feelings and reflections which have already
been described.    The only difficulty in the matter is, how to
reconcile the existence of such a doubt, even though a momentary one, with John's previous testimony of Jesus as the
Messiah and even recognition of him as a suffering Messiah.
This difficulty, however, has also been already met and a
solution offered.*
That our narrative, then, intends to represent the Baptist
as actually in doubt respecting the claims of Jesus as the
a foreigner. In not a few places it is obscure; and in many it does not give
the meaning of the original German. In the extract above quoted, for
example, not to mention many instances of improper choice of words, there are
several inaccuracies in the rendering. For instance, " himself," should be him
himself (ihn selbst): as it stands, it refers to John,-the Jesus in brackets being
added by our hand. The phrase beginning "but that he was firm as the
foundation" and ending with the words "everytempest," is an exaggeration
of the German, which is simply, but that he stood immovable in his faith amid
all tempests (sondern unerschutterlich im Glauben stand in alien sturmen).
in the next sentence, " its strength," should be either itself or its existence
(sich bewahren). So, too, in the next sentence, "his purposes to serve"
should read his purposes respecting (seine zwecke in).
NOTE TO THE FIFTH EDITION.-Since the above was written Sheldon
& Company have published a carefully corrected re-print of the English
Translation of Olshausen on the New Testament, in six octavo volumes,
under the supervision of Rev. Dr. Kendrick.
* Recent critical Biblical commentators generally agree in attributing
to the Baptist such a doubt as has been described. So do Meyer, De
Wette, Olshausen, Neander (Life of Jesus, ~ 41. 3.), etc.




244          THE BAPTISTSS DOUBTS IN PRISON,
Messiah, no one who is unprejudiced can hesitate to admit.
We must, therefore, reject that supposition as arbitrary and
as opposed to the New Testament representation,-which,
however, is among one class of theologians the most widely
received (by Calvin, Beza, Grotius, and, after them, by Hammond, Doddridge, Bloomfield, etc.),-according to which John
did not send to inquire for his own sake but on account of his
disciples, in order that he might by this mission and question
remove the doubts of those who did not admit the dignity of
Jesus, and. convict them of their error: But, even if we do
not lay any stress upon the fact that not the slightest indication of such a relation is found in our narrative, but that, on
the contrary, all that is said and done is represented as proceeding from or as referring to John in person, of what advantage, we may ask, could such an embassy have been?
Would the disciples of John have trusted to the witness of a
man in favor of himself, against whom they had previously
taken offence and of whose purity and truthfulness they could
not have been as firmly convinced as was John himself, as
much and even more than they trusted in the testimony of
their master? It is altogether improbable. Would not John
have rather confirmed them in their doubts, if he sent them to
Jesus instead of himself opposing their error with his whole
power and authority?
There is another supposition, however, which is not so inconsistent with the narrative: it is that of those (Lightfoot,
Kuinoel, Hasse, Leopold, Alford, etc.), who think that John
intended by this question to induce Jesus to hasten the establishment of his kingdom. If he indeed still cherished the hope
that Jesus would found an earthly kingdom, and this hope
could not as yet have altogether departed from him, this was,




AND HIS MISSION OF INQUIRY TO JESUS.     245
no doubt, a secondary intention of the mission; but its chief
object must still have been the longing which he felt to obtain
peace and quiet from the mournful distraction which reigned
within his soul. Nothing, however, is gained by such a supposition; for it is by no means probable that John, if his faith
had remained unshaken, should have desired Jesus to adopt
any other mode of procedure in his Messianic ministry than
that which he himself pleased to put into operation. Discontentment and doubt must have lain at the very foundation of
such a wish on the part of the Baptist.
The two ambassadors of John found Christ engaged in
works of healing and in benevolent actions of every kind: the
sick and the diseased had, as was their custom, crowded around
him from every side, in order to obtain from him relief from
their infirmities (Luke 7: 21.). Jesus, without allowing the
messengers to interrupt him in his employment, witlTout entering into any express defence or explanation of his Messianic
dignity, contents himself with merely pointing them to what
they saw performed before their eyes, to his wonder-working
and bliss-bestowing ministry. Of this they were to carry back
intelligence unto John; for it was in truth the most convincing
and the most -palpable proof that he was the expected Messiah,
the Son of God. "Go your way", said he, "and tell John
what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see,
the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead
are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached"; and by this
answer, cited almost in the words of Is. 35: 5. 6, and 61: 2.,
he afforded to John a new proof that in him the Messianic
prophecies of the Old Testament had been actually accomplished. The latter part of it was intended by Jesus to give
to the messengers a glance at'the inward spiritual work which




246           THE BAPTISTS DOUBTS IN PRISON,
he performed upon the hearts of men, while his miracles placed
before their eyes the external power which he was wont to call
to his. aid.
Objection has been made by some to the expression "the
dead are raised", since, as it is alleged, these disciples of John
had not themselves seen this miracle, and because in general
the assertion sounds somewhat hyperbolical, since only one
resurrection, that of the son of the widow of Nain, had as yet
occurred. It must be remembered, however, that the narrative does not oblige us to suppose that all the miracles mentioned were wrought in the actual presence of John's messengers; and, besides this, that Christ did not intend to limit
himself to these single proofs of his power, but purposed to
call their attention in a general way to his superhuman endowments, of which they saw particular instances in the single
actions which they then witnessed him perform. And it must
be recollected, furthermore, that he did not mean to restrict
the application of these words to the mere healing' of external
imperfections, but to refer them also,-a reference, however,
which, it must be confessed, must have been difficult at that
time for the disciples of John to understand,-to the healing
of internal infirmities, of inward spiritual dumbness and blindness, of spiritual leprosy, etc.; and' that, therefore, he purposed, by using the expression "the dead are raised",-which,
if literally and outwardly applied, does not, it must be admitted, seem altogether suitable,-to lead them to search out
in these words for some deeper meaning than appeared upon
their face, viz., the resurrection of those that were spiritually
dead; and to this application of the words,-since he could
not suppose that they would without some hint comprehend
their meaning, —kL directed their special attention by sub



AND HIS MISSION OF INQUIRY TO JESUS.     247
joining,' and to the poor the gospel is preached",-an expression which refers here, as it does often and naturally elsewhere, not merely to the poor in worldly goods, but in a far
higher sense, to the spiritually poor.
A word or two more Jesus adds, adapted especially to the
mournful condition of the Baptist, and intended to give to
him, for his consolation and for a warning, a direction as to
the ideas which he was for the future to entertain of the Messiah, and as to what was to be the relation which John should
sustain towards him: "And blessed is he, whosoever shall
not be offended in me." In this he indicates to the Baptist
how immeasurably higher his career was to be than that which
was expected of him by John and all his contemporaries; that
John, therefore, should look on quietly and patiently, and see
whither he directed his course; and that, if his conduct seemed
to come into conflict with human expectations and conceptions, he should not on that account be offended, but must
wait quietly and humbly, and look for the end.
Returning this answer, which cor:tains not a word too much
and not one too little, Jesus dismissed the ambassadors, that
they might return to John. He himself, however, turns to
the people that were standing around him, who might take
offence at this implied doubt on the part'of the Baptist whom
they had hitherto honored as a prophet; becomes his mediator and advocate, and exhibits him in all his worth and significance to their view. He inquires of them what ideas they
entertained relative to John, when, at an earlier period, they
went forth so zealously to him in the wilderness; whether they
had esteemed him a trembling reed, easily shaken by the wind,
so that surrendering himself readily to every impression, he
would at one time testify what at another time he doubted




248          THE BAPTIST'S DOUBTS IN PRISON,
according to his varying circumstances;.a man who would
adapt himself to the caprices of the people and perform the
work of his ministry according to their changeful wishes.
Such an impression the conduct and character of the Baptist
could not have made upon them, since he by no means allowed
himself to be made the plaything of the people's caprices. To
amuse themselves with him in this manner, therefore, could
not, when they went to him, have been their expectation.Why, then, had they gone?-Just as little could it have been
with the hope of delighting themselves with viewing the pomp
and splendor with which he was surrounded; for pomp and
luxury they could not have expected to find in one who was
an inhabitant of the desert; to behold such an exhib ition, it
was needful to go to the palaces of kings. They must, consequently, have been excited to their conduct by something
else.-They went out, says Jesus, speaking the mind of the
Jews, to see a prophet; for such they esteemed the Baptist.
They had, then, gone out with reason to behold and to hear
him; for he is indeed a prophet, and even more than a prophet: he is the messenger of the Lord, the forerunner of the
Messiah who has been announced by Malachi, and, consequently, the greatest of all mortals who stand without the
heavenly kingdom which has been introduced by Christ. This
divine kingdom has now in truth appeared and been founded,
the way having been first prepared by John; so that since his
time all men have diligently sought it and endeavor with an
eagerness allied to violence (cp. Luke 16: 16.) to make it
theirs; and he who zealously seeks after it and spares nothing,
who allows himself to be terrified from his purpose by nothing,
who presses eagerly forward in spite of all hindrances, he actually makes it his own by means of living faith in Christ




AND HIS MISSION OF INQUIRY FO JESUS.    249
John, then, who has prepared the way for and hastened the
introduction of the kingdom of heaven, is in a certain sense
the prophet Elias, of whom it has been said that he shall make
ready the way and introduce the reign of the Messiah; but
notwithstanding this he stands yet without the heavenly kingdom, and is, notwithstanding his high dignity and honor, less
than the least (or, more correctly, since the comparative is
used in the original, the relatively small) of those who are
actually citizens of this divine kingdom, which is elevated high
above every phase of Judaism and above all human institutions. He as yet neither knew the full divinity, the living
power and spiritual operation of the new kingdom, nor had he
yet experienced himself the blessings which he had been instrumental in bringing to others; though he stood nearer to
the kingdom than any other man, and had in person beheld
in close proximity what all the members of the old covenant
had hoped for and expected only from afar.
To this explanation of Christ's respecting the relative position of the Baptist, " he that is least [comparatively little] in
the kingdom of God, is greater than he," as we find it in
Matt. 11: 11., Luke makes an addition (: 29, 30.) in which
reproach is cast upon the Pharisees and lawyers because they,
-that is, the majority of them, for individuals among them
had acted differently,- had not in their proud self-righteousness received the baptism of John, whilst the people and the
publicans, on the contrary, had given honor to God, confessed
their sins, and submitted to the ordinance. This reproachful
language is subjoined to the representation which Christ gives
of the high dignity of John, and forms a very excellent connection with what precedes: one is, therefore, doubtful which
words stand as in the original discourse when delivered by




250          THE BAPTIST'S DOUBTS IN PRISON,
Christ, those of Matthew or those of Luke. It is probable,
however, judging from the style of the narration given by
Matthew, who generally states events in connection rather according to the nature of their snbject-matter than according
to their chronological relations to each other, that Luke has
preserved here the original form; and, besides this, the connection with what follows is easier in Luke than in'Matthew
Christ proceeds in Matt. 11: 16. ff. and Luke 1: 31. ff
with the reproof which he had already begun in Luke against
that degenerate race. The connection of this part of Matthew's narrative with what goes before, must be conceived
somehow in this way: although the dignity of the Baptist is
so great, although he can in a certain sense be called Elias,
yet had the greater number of the people continued indifferent
to him or even opposed him, because all had not gone in
accordance with their wishes; but, on the contrary, he that
prepared the way as well as he that founded the kingdom of
heav b had showed himself to be different and had acted differently from what they had expected. Just as little children
playing with their companions in the market become vexed
with them, if they do not copy after what they have set
before them for imitation, so had they regarded John and
Jesus as such little children, looked upon them as their equals,
and as persons who should dance tor their music, who should
be serious and mournful whenever they wished them to be so,
but joyful and gay whenever their minds should be thus
inclined. When, therefore, John came, he was too rigid and
strict to suit their wishes; when Christ himself appeared,
they thought that his mode of life was not sufficiently severe,
and found fault at his going into the company of publicans
and sinners. Instead of recognizing the wisdom of these per



AND HIS MISSION OF INQUIRY TO JESUS.     251
sons who had been inspired by God, they had hoped and
expected to find their own folly reflected back in them, and
had called their wisdom foolishness; "but," adds Jesus, by
way of consolation to the weak, but of warning to the
haughty and foolish, "Wisdom is justified of her children",
-by those who have surrendered themselves to her to be led
by her as she will, and who wisely follow the paths in which
she treads.
This discourse of Jesus which has just been examined
(Matt. 11: 7-19, and Luke 7: 24-35.) is highly important
as to its bearing upon the question, what relation did John
the Baptist sustain to Christianity; and by implication, upon
the still more important question, what is the relation of the
Old Testament to the New Testament dispensation. Indeed,
both these points may be considered as determined, either
directly or inferentially, by the representation which we have
just examined. In what way they are determined, Neander
(Life of Jesus, ~ 135.) gives us a lucid exhibition. With
regard to the relation of John to Christianity he says  " He
was behind Christianity, because he was yet prejudiced by his
conception of the theocracy af external; because he did not
clearly know that the Messiah was to found his kingdom by
sufferings, and not by miraculously triumphing over his foes;
because he did not conceive that this kingdom was to show
itself from the first, not in visible appearing, but as a divine
power, to develop itself spiritually from within outward, and
thus gradually to overcome and take possession of the world.
The least among those who understand the nature and process
of development of the divine kingdom, in connection with
Christ's redemption, is in this respect greater than the Baptist, who stood upon the dividing line of the two spiritual




252          THE BAPTIST'S DOUBTS IN PRISON.
eras. But John was above the prophets (and Christ so
declared), because he conceived of the Messiah and his kingdom in a higher and more spiritual sense than they had done,
and because he directly pointed men to Christ, and recognized
him as the manifested Messiah."
Not less satisfactorily does the same vigorous writer portray
the relation here represented, inferentially, as existing between
the Old Testament dispensation in general and Christianity:
"The fact that Christ places the Baptist above the prophets,
who were the very culminating-point of the Old Covenant, and
yet so far below the members of the new development of the
kingdom, exhibits in the most striking way possible his view
of the distance between the Old preparatory Testament and
the New. The authority of Christ himself, therefore, is contradicted by those who expect to find the truth revealed by
him, already developed in the Old Testament. If in John we
are to distinguish the fundamental truth which.he held, and
which pointed to the New Testament, from the limited and
sensuous form in which he held it, much more, according to
Christ's words are we bound to do this in the Old Testament
generally, and in its Messianic elements especially. Following
this intimation, we must in studying the prophets, discriminate the historical from the ideal sense, the conscious from
the unconscious prophecies."




JOHN'S DEATH.                 253
CHAPTER III.
JOHN'S DEATH.-GLANCE AT HIS CHARACTER AND HIS IMPORTANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
WHAT now was the impression which the answer of Christ
made upon the imprisoned Baptist? If he put full confidence
in the reply of the Redeemer, he could not help discovering
that he was not called to comprehend, and perhaps was not
capable of understanding him altogether; and the words
"blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me" must
have induced him to resign himself fully to the incomprehensible way of God, and to determine to wait quietly until he saw
the issue of what was then occurring. And, besides this, the
reference which Christ had made to his miraculous works and
to the preaching of the gospel, and the comparison of these
events with the Messianic prophecies made by John himself,
must have convinced the Baptist that Jesus was really conducting his ministry in accordance with the Old Testament
announcements, that he must of necessity be the Messiah, and
that, therefore, the prophecies of the Old Testament, which
represent him as appearing in the character of a royal earthly
monarch, must have some other sense, must be understood in
some other way than he had hitherto been accustomed to
suppose. In this way his belief in Christ was confirmed
and reestablished; and, difficult as it must have been at this
time for him to resign his old expectations,. which had become rooted in his mind-from having attended him during
all his life, we have yet reason to believe respecting him, the




254                  JOHN'S DEATH.
enlightened propli and messenger of God, that his humility
and submission to the divine will enabled him here, as in
general before, to struggle out from his difficulties and doubts,
and to arrive at the conception of the truth as it is in Jesus.
Had his life been prolonged, and had he again obtained his
liberty,. he would probably have become an attendant scholar
and disciple of Christ, and have entered himself into the
kingdom of God; but God required not this highest act of
self-denial at his hands. He was called as an Old Testament prophet; and was to afford a distinctive image of
such in his whole life and character, a whole complete and
perfect in himself: on this account was he called away from
the world just as the conviction had become established in
his mind that the Messianic kingdom must be something
different in its nature from that which he had hitherto expected and imagined. His death, then, as well as his imprisonment was a kindness conferred upon him, a trial which
came to an end just at the proper time.
We have already, in speaking of the imprisonment of the
Baptist, exhibited the relation of the two narratives of Matthew and Mark to each other. Only these same two evangelists relate to us the history of his execution: Luke refers
to the matter as to something known (9: 9.), whilst in 3: 19.
20. he merely speaks of the imprisonment. Mark gives a
fuller account of the death of John than Matthew, as he does
also of the imprisonment; but the latter evangelist entirely
agrees with the former in the leading outlines of his narrative
(cp. Matt. 14: 6. ff., Mark 6: 21. ff.).
Herodias, who thirsted to put the hated Baptist to death,
sought out a good opportunity for inducing her husband, who,
both on account of the people and because his feelings were at




JOIHNS DEATH.                 255
times opposed to the step, still hesitated to use harsher
measures towards John, tb give the order for his execution.
She instructed Salome, her daughter by her first marriage
with Philip, how to captivate the heart of her step-father by
means of immodest and wanton dancing assisted by the power
of her youth and beauty, in order that she might make use of
her as a means for procuring the death of John; and, accordingly, at a great feast which the prince gave on his birth-day
to the nobles of his kingdom, she caused her daughter, practised in all the arts of the wanton and shameless dance by
which the lustful passions of men may be aroused, to entertain
and to delight the king and his guests with her performances.
She succeeded in attaining her object. Inflamed by passion,
Antipas was induced to make a promise of which he was soon,
but too late, to repent: he swore to Salome to give to her
whatever she should request of him, should it even be the
half of his kingdom. She on her part, instructed it is probable by her mother, hastened to her to receive her further commands. Filled with joy at this successful issue of her plans,
Herodias directed her to demand the head of John the Baptist: immediately, therefore, Salome preferred this petition to
the king, and he, not wishing to appear false to his oath before
his guests, yielded to her request, and gave the order for his
execution. Thus fell by the hands of the executioner this last
distinguished prophet of the old covenant, after having engaged in his public ministry scarcely the space of one year and
having been confined in prison a few months, a sacrifice to his
candor and determined love of right, through the revengeful
hate of a sensual and ambitious woman. The weak-minded
prince, in order to cover over and to make some atonement for
his crime, permitted the disciples of the Baptist to confer an




256           GLANCE AT JOHN'S CHARACTER.
honorable burial upon the corpse of their master; but he
could no more recall the dead to life, though, perhaps, he
would afterwards have cheerfully done so, had he been able.
Such was the end of him who according to the testimony
of Christ was the greatest of all those who belonged to the
old covenant. Even if this expression of our Lord's refers
immediately to the office of the Baptist and to his position in
close proximity to the kingdom of God which had now made
its appearance in the world, yet it can nevertheless be also
said of him with entire truthfulness, that he was one of the
greatest of the pious worthies of the Old Testament in
respect to his character and his conduct. We find, indeed,
in the Old Testament not many examples of such purity of
mind, of such faithfulness in the fulfillment of a calling, of
such firmness in opposing the hostile spirit of the times, and
of such humility and such consciousness of a subordinate rank
aswe have displayed in John the Baptist. We have seen
that he practised from his earliest youth the greatest selfdenial, and this he exhibited, in accordance with the Old Testament stand-point, in the most rigid ascetic practices. For
this purpose he fled into the wilderness away from the sinful
converse of the world; he renounced all that is accustomed
to entice men and to lead them awayinto sinful indulgence;
he sought to control the temptation of the flesh by the most
rigid abstinence, by ascetic practices and mortifications of
every kind. To live only in God and with God, and to perform his commands with the utmost diligence and faithfulness,
were the objects of his earnest strivings.
And yet, notwithstanding all this, John was very far from
esteeming himself perfect; he did not, as was the case among
the Pharisees, and ever has been among most men who have




GLANCE AT JOHN'S CHARACTER.           257
striven to attain to a pure moral conduct, estimate his virtues
so highly as to suppose that he was now pure in the sight of
God, and to imagine that he needed nothing more in order to
make him a partaker of eternal life.  Here it was that he
showed his true greatness; for, notwithstanding all his purity,
he ever kept alive within him a sense of his unworthiness and
of his sinfulness, so that he could utter from his heart the
words, "I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou
to me?", and could feel himself so far inferior in dignity to his
great successor as to declare publicly that he was not worthy
to undo the latchet of his sandals. This honest, upright sense
of his unworthiness, this humility worthy of all admiration,
he carried along with him throughout his whole life; he, the
Baptist, who stood so high in the estimation of the people as
to be supposed by them to be the Messiah, to whom it would
have been an easy matter to place himself at the head of a
great party and to strive for worldly honor, or to announce
himself as the theocratic king who was called to reestablish
the Jewish nation in its former splendor and dominions, he who
was continually urged by his own disciples to vindicate the
superiority of his rank to that of him who first received testimony in his favor from John himself, and had been accredited
by him in the office which he assumed, declared nevertheless
with calm firmness and confidence, " I am not the Christ....
Ijnust decrease, but he must increase"; and not for a single
moment do we see him varying from his proper position respecting the manner in which, in spite of all the temptations
offered by his disciples and the people to the contrary, he was
conscious that it behooved him to conduct himself for the correct
discharge and fulfillment of his heavenly calling.-This humility
has appeared to some so improbable that they have on this




258            GLANCE AT JOHN'S CHARACTER.
very account objected to the credibility of our narrative; and
there is no doubt that a self-seeking disposition, if it had existed in John, could not have exhibited such entire freedom
from ambition and assumption of every kind. We must,
therefore, only feel the more rejoiced that we are able to point
out in biblical history, and we might even say in the history
of Christianity an example of modesty so distinguished, and
so worthy to be cited and imitated in every age.
" It was an excellent sweetness of religion," says one of
the most pious, and perhaps the most eloquent, of English
divines,* "that had entirely possessed the soul of the Baptist, that in so great a reputation of sanctity, so mighty concourse of people, such great multitudes of disciples and confidents, and such throngs of admirers, he was humble without
mixture of vanity, and confirmed in his temper and piety
against the strength of the most impetuous temptation. And
he was tried to some purpose: for when he was tempted to
confess himself to be the Christ, he refused it; or to be
Elias, or to be accounted'that prophet', he refused all such
great appellations, and confessed himself only to be a voice,
the lowest of entities, whose being depends upon the speaker,
just as himself did upon the pleasure of God; receiving
form, and publication, and employment, wholly by the will
of his Lord, in order to the manifestation of the Word
Eternal."-Humility was the prominent trait in the character of the stern and rigid Baptist. Though exalted in privileges and in position far above the prophets of the Old
Testament, he forgot not, at any time, that he was subordinate to the Messiah and that he was commissioned only
* Jeremy Taylor, Life of Christ (written in 1648), Sect. viii. 9.; a work
which contains many rich thoughts, warmly and. eloquently expressed.




GLANCE AT JOHN'S CHARACTER.          259
"to prepare the way" for the entrance of that kingdom
which " the Christ-" was to establish upon the earth. Thus,
without wavering in his humility, he fulfilled his mission as
the Forerunner of the Anointed of the Lord.
As the Baptist conducted himself modestly and discreetly
with-regard to his own personal conduct, so he opposed with
determination and with firmness the corruption of his times.
There was no person, however high and mighty, there was no
prejudice, however universal and firmly strengthened, that he
hesitated to attack, when necessary, with the severest reprobation; and this tegardless of the consequences to himself.
The fear of man he knew not. Herod as well as the Pharisees
felt alike the sharpness of his reproof; here did he prove himself another Elias indeed, opposing himself, in the power of
his word, and with the conciousness of the approval and
assistance of God, to the transgression of the king, and announcing to him the divine punishment that was due to his
crime. The more rigid he was towards himself, the less contradiction were the people able to discover between his conduct and his preaching, and with the more propriety could he
require from those who flocked, to him the most scrupulous
repentance. He had experienced in his own person what a
man is able to do, if he only strive in earnest, and therefore
he was not contented with hearing the stale remark, that what
he preached was easier said than done.-He knew well, moreover, how to discriminate between the different capacities and
necessities of the people; and his wisdom is evinced in particular by the fact that he did not enjoin upon all ascetic
practices similar to those to which he himself had conformed;
that he did not require of them to renounce as he had done,
all intercourse with the world; but showed unto each indi



260           GLANCE AT JOHN'S CHARACTER.
vidual, according to his peculiar business or profession, the
point from which he must commence undertaking a change in
himself, in order to proceed working from that point until he
had produced an alteration in his disposition, and, without
renouncing his previous relations, his condition, or his employment, to exhibit unto all men, in these very relations of life
and in these his appropriate circumstances, the proof of a
mind and heart truly repentant.
So lived and so labored the man who was called to display
before the eyes of a corrupt people and before the world, once
more in all its purity and clearness, the brilliancy of the Old
Testament dispensation, and to give proof in his own person
of the divine power of the law and of the blessings produced
by a reliance on the divine promises; but at the same time to
show the inadequateness of the Old Testament dispensation
to afford a true contentment of heart which shall still all
uneasiness and all desire, and assure to us peace and joy in
life and in death.-The Forerunner was indeed "a burning
and a shining light"; and among all the Old Testament worthies who had hitherto existed, there had not, according to
the testimony of Christ, "risen a greater prophet than John
the Baptist."  And yet, according to the same infallible witness, "he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater
than he."  The "kingdom of heaven" here spoken of, is not,
of course, the state of future and eternal felicity; for to this,
no doubt, the Baptist is as much entitled as any personal disciple of the Saviour's, and will enjoy it in as full fruition as
any one who, after his day, became a follower of the meek and
lowly Jesus. No other Old Testament prophet was superior
to John in outward holiness; no other was more free from
internal tendencies to sin; no other kept himself more "un



GLANCE AT JOHN S CHARACTER.           261
spotted from the world"; none had a clearer insight into the
fundamental principles of the Messianic dispensation; while
none had so immediate an agency as he in ushering in the
light of the Gospel upon a benighted and ignorant world.
He was the last and the highest of the Old Testament prophets; and his reward in the future world will be at least as
glorious and as sure as theirs for all eternity.
Yet, in one sense, John was not, any more than Isaiah or
Daniel, a member of " the kingdom of heaven"; that is, of
the "kingdom" in its earthly manifestation,-the outward
and visible Church of, Christ.  Before that kingdom had
been completely established, John had been executed in prison, and, though it was indeed founded before his death, the
Baptist had never been personally called into its membership.
Some of his disciples had; but he himself still stood without,
fulfilling his appropriate mission. Before the glorious work
of redemption had been finished by the atonement, and before
our Lord by his death, resurrection and ascension, and by
the gift of the Holy Spirit, had perfected his Church, and.
established it in its full grandeur, the Baptist had gone to
his everlasting reward.
Personally, therefore, the Forerunner was not a member
of the new spiritual community, the earthly' kingdom of
heaven", founded by Christ. In some particulars, then, he
who spoke so authoritatively to the people, and promised to
them, on repentance, forgiveness of their sins, himself needed
elements essential to the Christian character in its completeness; needed to partake of the baptism of the Holy Spirit;
and, in some respects, to receive enlightenment from the God
of all wisdom. It was not consistent with his character and
office, that he should be more perfect. It was his duty to




262           GLANCE AT JOHN S CHARACTER.
point others to the door of "the kingdom of God"; not,
however, to enter himself, and partake of its earthly blessings. He had been sent to prepare the way; to lead the
bridegroom to the bride, to introduce the Saviour to his
Church; and this responsible calling he fulfilled with a faithfulness worthy of all admiration.
Other prophets of the Old Testament dispensation had
seen the day of Christ " afar off", and were glad; the Baptist saw it close " at hand", and prepared the people for its
introduction. He had himself, as well as his Master, the
Messiah, been made the subject of prophetic prediction, some
four hundred years before his appearance; his birth was
announced to his father by a special messenger from heaven;
his mother was related by ties of blood to the mother of the
Messiah: he prepared the Cway for the introduction into the
world of "the kingdom of heaven", and made ready a people anxious for-its reception: he baptized those who believed
his message, and professed themselves repentant of their sins;
he baptized the Son of God himself, separating him as holy
from the world, and consecrating him to his theocratic reign;
and then, bore witness to him as the Messiah announced by
the Prophets.  Such distinctions no other Old Testament
worthy enjoyed; and well was John entitled to be called by
his father in his song of praise, " the prophet of the Highest."
The labors of the Forerunner were of the highest importance to the proper introduction and reception among the
people of " the kingdom of God." The Jewish nation needed
to be prepared for its appearance and establishment among
them and in the world. They entertained very erroneous
notions of the character and object of the " heavenly kingdom" which was about to be founded upon earth; and these




GLANCE AT JOHNIS CHARACTER.          263
had to be corrected, in whole or in part, before the reign
of heaven could commence. To correct these errors, and
"to make ready a people prepared. for the Lord, " not in
profession merely but in heart, was the intent of the mission
of John, the son of Zacharias and Elisabeth.-" As the
Baptist, while he was in the wilderness", says Bishop Taylor
(Life of Christ, ~ 8. 4.), "became the pattern of solitary
and contemplative life, a school of virtue and example of
sanctity and singular austerity; so at his emigration from
the places of his retirement, he seemed, what indeed he was,
a rare and excellent personage: and the wonders which were
great at his birth, the prediction of his conception by an
angel, which never had before happened but in the persons
of Isaac and Samson; the contempt of the world which he
bore about him; his mortified countenance and deportment;
his austere and eremitical life; his vehement spirit and excellent zeal in preaching, created so great opinions of him
among the people that'all held him for a prophet' in his
office, for a heavenly person in his own particular, and a rare
example of sanctity and. holy life to all others: and all this
being made solemn and ceremonious by his baptism, he prevailed so, that he made excellent and apt preparations for
the Lord's appearing; for there went out to him Jerusalem,
and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and
were baptized of him, confessing their sins."
Had it not been for the great excitement which John produced among the nation by his powerful and effective preaching, the Son of God, whose habit it was to work quietly and
in stillness, would not have secured at the beginning of his
ministry so great a concourse of attendants from among the
people, which, uncertain and vacillating though it certainly




264           GLANCE AT JOHN'S CHARACTER.
was, contributed essentially to the furtherance of, the grand
design of his labors. Had it not been for the repeated monitions of the Baptist, respecting repentance, had it not been
for the explanation which he gave that only he whose heart
was just could possibly find entrance into the kingdom  of
heaven, Christ would have had to combat yet more violent
prejudices than he actually encountered in favor of the mere
externality of the reign of the Messiah. Without his pointed
testimony in favor of Jesus, without his express reference of
his disciples to his person and dignity, sufch true and susceptible hearts would not so readily have surrendered themselves
without reserve to Christ, and they would not have been prepared from the commencement to conceive and understand
the true worth of the Redeemer, and to form themselves, by
the proper employment of his society, his example and his
words, to be the pillars of his Church. To those who looked
for the Messiah he was a leader and a guiding star which
pointed them to the longed-for Saviour; to the self-righteous
and the confident, he was a sword which severed the slender
cable of. their self-righteousness and confidence; the sleeping
he awoke and the inactive he aroused from their listlessness,
summoning them to a life in accordance with the will of the
Lord and to a line of conduct suited to, an expectation of the
speedy appearance of -the Messiah; to the haughty and obdurate he was a hammer and a stone which cast them down with
crushing violence from their high estate and hurled them to
the earth. Thus did he prepare the way of the Lord, and
thus make all things ready, that he might lead him to a union
with his Church, while he, the friend of the bridegroom, stood
apart without, and found a sufficient reward in the pleasure
which he experienced in the joy of the bridegroom.