Page images


From the Temptation of Christ, to the commencement of his

more public ministry after the imprisonment of John.

p. 36.

Further testimony of John the Baptist.

JOHN i. 19-34'. Julian Pe- 19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent Bethabara. riod, 4739, priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art

thou ?
Vulgar Æra,

Sacra, expressly limits its meaning to denote the land of Ca-
naan.-Sermon on Excess in Pbilological Speculation, pote 12.

1 Michaelis and Lightfoot begin this part of the history at
John v. 15.; and Doddridge has placed ver. 15–18 by them-
selves, before the baptism of Christ. In the note to chap. i.
sect. 2. I have mentioned the reasons for preserving the present
order, and preferring the authority of Archbishop Newcome.

Having now been inaugurated by the waters of baptism, the testimony from heaven, the anointing of the spirit, and the conquest over temptation, into his high office; the Messiah presents himself to his forerunner, who immediately hails bim, as the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. John, as a prophet, spoke under the influence of divine inspiration : in no other manner could he have obtained power to make the declaration. As our Lord had come into the world for the express object of expiating the sin of man, there is an obvious propriety in the salutation of the Baptist. It seems to mean, that as far as man was concerned, all the other offices, characters, and attributes of the Holy One of God, are of comparatively inferior moment, unless he be considered as the spotless lamb, that should die for mankind. The testimony of the ancient prophets bad but gradually revealed the various perfections of the Messiah; and the hope and faith of man had been continually excited and cherished by the wise and merciful ordinance which appointed a succession of prophets, each of whom added some additional information respecting him who was to come. This salutation of the Baptist was the completion of all prophecy. From this time the voice of prophetic inspiration, under the law of the old covenant, utterly ceased. The Messiah had come, and he was before them. The Lamb of God was preparing himself for the fearful sacrifice. The epithet which was thus given to Christ must have been thoroughly understood by the people, as the Jews were accustomed to give to the lambs which were offered in the temple, the same namo— the sacrifice of God." Vide Raza Mehinga in Zobar in Lev. fol. 3. 32. apud Gill in loc.

In support of the doctrine of the atonement, there is more authority than for any other revealed in the Jewish or Christian Scriptures. It was taught in the beginning of the patriarchal dispensation, the first after the fall, in the words of the promise and in the institution of sacrifices. It is enforced with ihe uni. form concurrent testimony of the typos, propbecies, opinions, customs, and traditions of the Jews, and the Jewish Church, It is the peculiar foundation and principal doctrine of the

Julian Pe- 20 And he confessed, and denied not ; but confessed, Bethabara. riod, 4739, I am not the Christ. end of the year.

21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias ? Volgar Æra, And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet ? And he 26.

answered, No...

22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou ? that we may give an answer to them that sent us,

What sayest thou of thyself?

23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

24 And they which were sent, were of the Pharisees.

25 And they asked him, and said unto him. Why baptizest? thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

Christian Church in all ages, which has never deviated from the
opinion that the death of Christ on the cross was," the full,
perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the
sins of the whole world.” See particularly Archbishop Magee,
on the Atonement, with the notes and dissertations appended.
The Commentators,-Outram, and the principal authors refer-
red to by Archbishop Magee. Dr. P. Smith's Sermon also on
the Atonement is a valuable tract.

? The messengers from Jerusalem could not or would not
understand the answer of the Baptist, when he told them he was
neither Elias returned from heaven, nor Jeremiah risen from
the dead, though he was the predicted voice of one crying in the
wilderness. They demanded of him, therefore, by what autho-
rity he baptized. Though baptism had long been known and
practised among them, it had been applied to the proselytes
only, and they believed that Elias and Jeremiah, the immediate
precursors of Christ, were the only persons authorized to bap-
tize the Jews themselves, for the purpose of forming a new and
more select society, separated from the mass of the nation.--
Rosenmuller in N. T. vol. ii. p. 309. Kuinoel Comment. in lib.
N. T. hist. vol. iii. p. 130.

Joh. And. Danzius, in a very valuable treatise on the baptism of Proselytes among the Jews, written to illustrate this passage of St. John's Gospel, and the passages in Matthew, chap. iii. has considered at length the baptism of John. His treatise is bound up in Meuschen's Nov. Test. ex Talmude. As the work is not often to be procured, I have selected some of the points he discusses, and beg to refer to the work itself for the more ample detail.

To determine whether the baptism of John was divinely appointed or not, two enquiries appear to be necessary.

1. Was such a rite as baptism practised in the Jewish Church by divine appointment before the time of John.

2. If so, was the baptism of John distinct from that previously established among the Jews.

In reply to these questions, Danzius concludes that the baptism of John was not totally distinct from that in use amongst the Jews, (p. 262. $ 25.) Scripture concurs with Josephus in speaking of baptism as a rito of long standing in the Jewish Church. By both John is represented to have been more bent upon correcting the abuse of the existing institution, than in establishing a new one.


Julian Pe- 26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water : Bethabara. riod, 4739, but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; end of the year.

27 He it is, who, coming after me, is preferred before Vulgar Æra, me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. 26.

28 These things were done in Bethabara , beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world ^!

Baptism was appointed by God himself, (p. 266. $ 30.) It was the received opinion among the ancient Jews, that baptism was appointed by God, and bad obtained in their nation from the promulgation of the law. The sanctification enjoined (Exod. xix. 10.) is thought to have been baptism.

(P. 288. $ 7. and 11.) St. Paul, 1 Cor. x. 2. says, év TY vepedy και ενθαλασσυ εβαπτισαντο. These words may be taken literally, without any figurative signification. They were baptized, tv vegeln, i.e. in rain water, and £v Qalaoop, in the sea.

(P. 301. $ 85 and 86.) The Jewish Elders did not inquire into the baptism of John, as a thing the nature of whicb was new and unheard of amongst them-Ist. But because he, on his private authority, usurped a public function, wbich belonged to three persons (triumvirati) commissioned by the Chureh. -dly. Because he baptized those for whom it might seem unnecessary, viz. Jews under the covenant, wbo had been baptized before in their ancestors, and needed not baptism as an initiatory rite for admission into the Jewish Church. (p. 305. $ 102.)-And, 3dly. Because in his baptism he differed from their ancestors in the end proposed.

The Jews believed baptism to have been instituted by God himself. If this opinion was true, and the baptism of John was not totally distinct from that in use among the Jews, John must be allowed to have been divinely commissioned to exercise that function.-See the Treatise of Danzius.

Gorionides, however, asserts of Jobn, that he was the institutor of baptism. This is he who mban nwy, made, instituted, or practised baptism.-Lib. v. c. 45. (ap. Gill.)

3 The events of the new dispensation were shadowed forth by the many circumstances under the former system of worship. St. John baptized at Bethabara. This place, the name of which denotes “a place of passage,” is said to have been the very spot where the Israelites, under the command of Joshua, advanced into the Holy Land. It was over against Jericho. There is reason to believe (vide Lightfoot in loc.) that St. John was baptizing in the very place therefore, where the Israelites passed over; and that our Lord was baptized in that spot where the ark rested in the bed of the river. These coineidences are so very appropriate and numerous, that we shall do well to hesitate before we call them all accidental.

Jerome (a) and Origen (6) have preserved the tradition that
John baptized in Bethabara. The place was pointed out to
strangers in their time.

(a) De locis Hebraicis, fol. 89. I. (b) Comm. in Joan, tom, 8. p.

4 The observations of Lightfoot on the time when and the
circumstances under which this expression was used, deserve to
be noticed.


Julian Pe.

30 This is he of whom I said ", After me cometh a Bethabara. riod, 4739, man which is preferred before me : for he was before me. end of the

31 And I knew him not ® : but that he should be made Vulgar Æra, 26.

John, in his opinion, could not have selected a more characteristic expression than that of the mor ng and evening lamb, that was offered at Jerusalem.

1. John addressed Priests and Levites, whose chief employment was to make a sacrifice of that lamb.

2. It was about the time of offering the sacrifice, when John used these words.

3. The lamb declared the innocency of Christ in his being without spot, and the death of Christ in being offered up.

4. It was pertinent to the doctrine of John, for he had spoken of remission of sin to all who came near, and declares when Christ came in sight, in what mauner the sins of those who repeuted were to be forgiven, by the sacrifice of this very lamb of God, who should bear away the sins of the world, as the lamb offered in the temple, took away in a figure the sins of the Jews.-Lightfoot, 2d part of the Harmony of the Evangelists, Works, vol. i. p. 529.

To take away sin was a common phrase among the Tal-
mudists.-Brescith rabba, sect. 22. fol. 23. 2. ad verba Caini,
Cainus Deum sic alloquitur: superna et iuserna tu portas,
bayo ndx 7** yvos, sed peccata mea tu non portas. Eadem
repetuntur in Debarim rabba, sect, 8. fol. 260. 2. Jalkut Ru-
beni, fol. 22. 1. Tanchuma, fol. 2. 3. Jalkut Rubeni, fol. 30. 4.

, .
In the Levitical Dispensation, when a sacrifice was offered
for sin, he that brought it laid his hand upon the head of the
victim, according to the command of God, Lev. i. 4. iii. 2. iv. 4.
and by that rite transferred his sins upon the victim, who is said
to take them upon him, and to carry them away. In the daily
sacrifice of the temple, the stationary men, who were the repre-
sentatives of the people, laid their hands upon the unoffending
lamb thus offered for them; and those appropriated for the
morning and cvening sacrifice, were bought with that half she.
kel, which all the Jews paid yearly, eis Nútpov Tos yuxñs autwv
εξιλάσασθαι περί των ψυχών αυτών, as the price of the redemp-
tion of their lives to make an atonement for them. Exod. xxx.
12. 14. 16. This lamb of God was to be offered to take away at
once the guilt of sin, and to put an end to the sacrifices required
by the law.

Vide Whitby in loc. Lightfoot, vol. ii. p. 531. and Archbishop
Magee, on the sin offering among the Jews. I beg to intreat
every man who would desire to understand thoroughly the cause
wby Christ came into the world, to peruse this book.

$ Kuinoel, comparing this verse with ver. 30. has discussed both passages at length, and decides, after an impartial examination of the various meanings assigned to them, by others, in favour of the generally received opinion, that the Baptist intended to enforce on his hearers the Scriptural doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ.--Kuinoel in libros bistoricos N. T. vol. iii. p. 117–121.

6 This expression of the Evangelist, “ I knew him not,” appears at variance with the passage Matt. iii. 13. where John, knowing his superiority, declares, “ I have need to be baptized by thee. There are several ways of reconciling this apparent difference the most natural interpretation seems to be, that John being made acquainted by his own parents with the miraculous circumstances that preceded the birth of his relation ;



Julian Pe- manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with Bethabara, riod, 4739, water. end of the

32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit Vulgar Æra, descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon


39 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

and having known the extraordinary purity and holiness of his
life, he declares that “ I have need to be baptized by thee, and
comest thou to me?” But although John knew him personally,
he knew him not officially as the Messiah, till the promised
token had been vouchsafed to him ; till a voice from heaven
proclaimed him the beloved Son of God, and the spirit descend-
ing like a dove hovered over bim. The Jews in general must
have known our Saviour personally, as the reputed son of Joseph
and Mary, but they knew him not then, although be was in the
midst of them, as the Christ; nor shall they know him till the
veil be removed from their eyes. See Joho xiv. 9.

Some commentators suppose that John, on Jesus coming to
Jordan, to be baptized of him, knew him to be the Christ by the
same divine impulse which directed Simeon, when he hailed the
infant Jesus in the temple as the promised Messiah. See also
(1 Kings xiv. 1—7.) where the wife of Jeroboam is made known
to the prophet Ahijah. We have every reason to suppose tha
John must have had a personal acquaintance with our Saviour,
from the connexion and intimacy between the two families, and
that they would meet each other at Jerusalem at the great fes-
tival three times a year; but his Messiahship was revealed to
the Baptist by some miraculous and indubitable evidence, for
confirmation of his own faith, and that of all succeeding ages.
-Hale's Analysis, vol. ii. p. 731. Witsius de vita Joannis-ad
fin Miscell, Sacra, vol. ii.

The venerable Archdeacon Nares interprets the passage, I knew him not as the Messiah. Doddridge endeavours to prove, that either accidentally, or providentially, they might very possibly have been unknown to each other.--Archdeacon Nares Remarks on the Socinian Version of the New Testament, p. 34, 35.

Nonnus, who lived in the fourth century, has left a Paraphrase of the Gospel of St. John in homeric verse. The priocipal use of this work, in the present day, is to shew us the sense in which the more controverted passages of St. John's Gospel were understood at this period. Nonnus has thus paraphrased the expression, “I knew him not,” in verse 31.

εγώ δέ μιν ο πάρος έγνων
όμμασιν, &c.

Paraph. ch. i, line 108, 109.
The corresponding passage in verse 33, leaves out the word
oupaoiv, line 118.

« PreviousContinue »