Matthew · Chapter 3

V. 1. In those days-that is, while Jesus dwelt there.

In the wilderness of Judea-This was a wilderness properly so called, a wild, barren, desolate place as was that also where our Lord was tempted. But, generally speaking, a wilderness in the New Testament means only a common, or less cultivated place, in opposition to pasture and arable land. Mark 1:1; Luke 3:1.

Verse 1. John the Baptist] John, surnamed The Baptist, because he required those to be baptized who professed to be contrite because of their sins, was the son of a priest named Zacharias, and his wife Elisabeth, and was born about A. M. 3999, and about six months before our blessed Lord. Of his almost miraculous conception and birth, we have a circumstantial account in the Gospel of Luke, chap. 1: to which, and the notes there, the reader is requested to refer. For his fidelity in reproving Herod for his incest with his brother Philip’s wife, he was cast into prison, no doubt at the suggestion of Herodias, the profligate woman in question. He was at last beheaded at her instigation, and his head given as a present to Salome, her daughter, who, by her elegant dancing, had highly gratified Herod, the paramour of her incestuous mother. His ministry was short; for he appears to have been put to death in the 27th or 28th year of the Christian æra.

Came-preaching] khrusswn, proclaiming, as a herald, a matter of great and solemn importance to men; the subject not his own, nor of himself, but from that God from whom alone he had received his commission. See on the nature and importance of the herald’s office, at the end of this chapter. khrussein, says Rosenmuller, de iis dicitur, qui in PLATEIS, in CAMPIS, in ÆRE aperto, ut a multis audiantur, vocem tollunt, &c. “The verb khrussein is applied to those who, in the streets, fields, and open air, lift up their voice, that they may be heard by many, and proclaim what has been committed to them by regal or public authority; as the KERUKES among the Greeks, and the PRECONES among the Romans.”

The wilderness of Judea] That is, the country parts, as distinguished from the city; for in this sense the word wilderness, rbdm midbar or twyrbdm midbarioth, is used among the rabbins. John’s manner of life gives no countenance to the eremite or hermit’s life, so strongly recommended and applauded by the Roman Church.

Verse 1. In those days — That is, in those years. For, as these events happened near thirty years after those recorded in the former chapter, this phrase is to be taken, in a very extensive sense, for that age of which he had spoken in the preceding words. And it is here used with the greater propriety, because John did indeed appear in his public character while Christ continued to dwell at Nazareth, which was the event that Matthew had last mentioned. Christ was now about thirty years of age, before which time of life no priest, teacher, or prophet was allowed to perform his office, as the Hebrews tell us, and as may be collected from the Scripture, 1 Chronicles 23. 3. Hence we learn that great preparation is necessary for sacred offices. The evangelists, therefore, pass over almost in entire silence our Saviour’s minority, only mentioning his disputing with the doctors in the temple, Luke 2:46. And yet it is probable many other remarkable things happened during that period, which, if they had been recorded, we should have read with pleasure and profit. But as the Holy Ghost has not been pleased to favour us in this respect, let us be thankful for, and duly improve, what is made known to us. Came John — The son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, who had lived for several years retired in the wilderness of Judea: the Baptist — So called, either because he was the first who, by God’s command, baptized penitents, or because by him God instituted the ordinance of baptism. For, admitting that the Jews received proselytes by baptism, yet he baptized Jews themselves, and from his time the ordinance of baptism must be dated. Before Christ’s entering upon the first part of his work, that of declaring the will of God, was recorded, it was necessary that the office of John should be spoken of, because he was his harbinger, or forerunner, and proclaimed his coming beforehand; and because, at the time of John’s baptizing Jesus, the Holy Ghost visibly descended on him, and consecrated him to his prophetic office. Preaching — The original word, khrusswn, means proclaiming, or crying aloud. It is properly used of those who make proclamation in the streets or camps, or who lift up their voice in the open air, and declare the things which are to be promulgated by public or royal authority, and which they have in charge from another. In the wilderness of Judea — That is, in the uncultivated and thinly-inhabited parts of Judea, where, it seems, his father Zacharias lived, Luke 1:39, 40. For we are not to suppose that John shunned the society of men, as those afterward did, who, on that account, were called hermits; but he had been brought up and had always lived in the country, and not in the city, and had had a plain country education, and not an academical or courtly one, at Jerusalem. We must observe, that the term wilderness, among the Jews, did not signify a place wholly void of inhabitants, but a place in which they were fewer, and their habitations more dispersed, than in villages and cities. Hence we read of six cities with their villages, in the wilderness, Joshua 15:61, 62; that Nabal dwelt in the wilderness of Paran, 1 Samuel 25:1, 2; and Joab had his house in the wilderness, 1 Kings 2:34. John began his preaching in the desert, in which he had been brought up, Luke 1:80, as Jesus, in like manner, began his in Galilee, Acts 10:37. There was, however, this difference between them, that Christ preached in Galilee, a country the most populous of any in that neighbourhood, but John in the desert, that is, in a place but thinly inhabited, and little cultivated. The former of which was suitable to the benignity of our Saviour, and the latter to the austerity of his forerunner. Lastly, John, who had begun to preach in Judea, is imprisoned and put to death in the dominions of Herod; Christ, on the other hand, who entered upon his ministry in the tetrarchy of Herod, is crucified at Jerusalem, in Judea.

Verse 1. In those days came John the Baptist. When the time of the seventy weeks was fulfilled, when the sceptre was departed from Judah, and when all the east, according to Suetonius, expected one to arise in Judea who should be the ruler of all things. It was when Tiberius entered the fifteenth year of his reign, that the preacher of the desert opened his commission.

Preaching in the wilderness of Judea. John had a special revelation from heaven, of all the particulars of his mission with regard to doctrine and to baptism. Of this revelation we know but one fact, that on whomsoever he should see the Spirit descend, and resting upon him, the same was the Messiah. John 1:33. The glory was uncreated, and the sign was infallible. The spirit of his ministry and baptism was to sanctify and prepare his country for the reception of Christ, and for accession to the evangelical kingdom, as Moses had sanctified them for the reception of the law. 1 Corinthians 10:2. After this revelation, it is not doubted but that John instantly opened his commission in his own neighbourhood, the hill country, and wilderness of Judea. The king’s business required haste, and the harbinger of the Lord was too full of the Spirit to admit of delay.

§ 15. — COMING AND MINISTRY OF JOHN THE BAPTIST, 1-13.

1. In those days — The days in which our Saviour dwelt at Nazareth, as is detailed in the last chapter.

Yet between the two chapters an interval of near thirty years has transpired. The infant Saviour has grown to manhood, and the period when the main work of his mission must be accomplished has arrived. His reputed father, Joseph, after living for some years as a carpenter at Nazareth, had died. His maternal brothers and sisters had grown up around him. The prodigies which attended his birth had almost passed from memory. His younger brothers, ignorant of the occurrence, doubted his claims to the Messiahship. His mother almost alone retained the remembrance undimmed; so that when the time for his first miracle arrived (John 2:3) she erred, not by want of faith, but by impatience for the mighty work.

Why did the brethren of our Lord, and his Nazarene townsmen, not recognize in his perfection of childhood his divine nature? This is not wonderful. It is probable that his innocent goodness appeared tame and insipid to their depraved tastes. It attracted less notice than the flaring smartness of many a boyish genius, or the precocity of any boyish bully. The sinless man was despised and rejected; no wonder the sinless child. Of the personal appearance of Jesus, not the slightest description is given in the New Testament. Pictures of him were in existence as early as the fourth century; but they are rather representatives of the ideal of Jesus in the mind of a man of pictorial genius, than an authentic likeness of his person. Came — The evangelist says not that John lived; or that he appeared or flourished; but emphatically he came. The beginning of the explanation of the word is found in Matthew 17:10-13, where our Lord declares that John the Baptist is Elias (Elijah) that should come. And by this we are referred to the fourth chapter of Malachi, which chapter should be well studied, in connection with the history of Elijah the prophet, by all who would get the key to the character of John. For John was the antitype of Elias, and in him Malachi 4:5 was fulfilled.

John the Baptist — His miraculous birth, with its attendant wonders, is narrated by Luke, chap. 1. John was the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, devout persons and of priestly rank. His mother was cousin of Mary, the blessed virgin mother. His birth was six months previous to that of the Messiah. It was pre-announced by the angel Gabriel, was attended by marked miracles, and celebrated by his father in an inspired song. He waxed strong in spirit, and preparatory to his stern mission “he was in the deserts till the day of his showing unto Israel.” While our Saviour was maturing to manhood in Galilee, John was growing up to be his forerunner in the hill country of Judea; so totally unacquainted, that when Jesus came into John’s presence for baptism, the Baptizer knew him not. The Baptist — That is, the Baptizer. Many learned men have maintained that the baptism of proselytes existed among the Jews before the coming of John. After a critical review of the question of its existence, (Bib. Rep., April, 1853,) Prof. Stuart decides that “the probability, on the ground of evidence, is strong against it.” John then was probably called the baptist as being the first baptizer. Passages like John 1:25 and Matthew 21:24-27 are most naturally explained under the view that John originated baptism proper by divine appointment, but in accordance with a Jewish expectation, that something of the sort would be established, suggested by passages like Isaiah 12:13; Ezekiel 36:25; Zechariah 13:1. Preaching — That is, proclaiming; or still more literally, heralding, or crying forth as a herald who goes forth to make proclamation. Heralds were anciently kings’ criers, who went forth to proclaim their mandates. Wilderness of Judea — In the deserts near the Jordan. John appears to have begun his ministry first in the rural districts near Hebron. Afterward he removed nearer to the wild tract between Jerusalem, the Jordan, and the Dead Sea; and finally took his position at Bethabara. This spot he selected from the need of plenty of water. Along the western margin of the Jordan and Dead Sea the country was wild, and covered with but a thin population. Bethabara was traditionally believed to be the place where Joshua and the tribes entered the land of Canaan. Hence its name signifies the ford of the Jordan.

It is proper here to point out some of the special traits in which Elijah was the historical type of John.

Elijah was the founder or introducer of the prophets, as Moses was of the law, and as John was the introducer of the kingdom of Christ. He preceded the coming and indwelling of God with the prophetic order; as John preceded the coming and indwelling of God in Christ. He dwelt apart, as John did, in the desert, as a rebuke of the corruption of the social mass. He had his Ahab and his Jezebel, by whom he was murdered in intention; as John had his Herod and his Herodias, by whom he was murdered in reality.

1 John preacheth: his office, life, and baptism. 7 He reprehendeth the Pharisees, 13 and baptizeth Christ in Jordan.

CHAPTER 3. Verse 1. In those days. — That is, while Jesus yet remained dwelling in Nazareth, where he continued till near his entrance upon his public ministry.

Preaching. — The word signifies to publish or proclaim any thing as a public officer, commissioned and warranted by lawful authority. John the Baptist was God’s commissioned herald, or preacher, and did not rush into his service without express authority.

In the wilderness of Judea. — This comprehended, says Lightfoot, the mountains and part of the plain along the Jordan, and also especially the hill country south of Jerusalem. In this hill country, at Hebron, John was born, but retired before his mission, to the neighbouring wilderness, probably of Ziph or Maon. He taught first in that district, and then toward the Jordan, a tract sufficiently dessert, yet with a great resort of people, and near large cities. The wildernesses of Canaan were not in every part without towns and cities.

V. 2. The kingdom of heaven, and the kingdom of God, are but two phrases for the same thing. They mean, not barely a future happy state, in heaven, but a state to be enjoyed on earth: the proper disposition for the glory of heaven, rather than the possession of it.

Is at hand-As if he had said, God is about to erect that kingdom, spoken of by Daniel Daniel 2:44; 7:13, 14; the kingdom of the God of heaven. It properly signifies here, the Gospel dispensation, in which subjects were to be gathered to God by his Son, and a society to be formed, which was to subsist first on earth, and afterward with God in glory. In some places of Scripture, the phrase more particularly denotes the state of it on earth: in ,others, it signifies only the state of glory: but it generally includes both. The Jews understood it of a temporal kingdom, the seat of which they supposed would be Jerusalem; and the expected sovereign of this kingdom they learned from Daniel to call the Son of man.

Both John the Baptist and Christ took up that phrase, the kingdom of heaven, as they found it, and gradually taught the Jews (though greatly unwilling to learn) to understand it right. The very demand of repentance, as previous to it, showed it was a spiritual kingdom, and that no wicked man, how politic, brave, or learned soever, could possibly be a subject of it.

Verse 2. Repent] metanoeite. This was the matter of the preaching. The verb metanoew is either compounded of meta, after, and noein to understand, which signifies that, after hearing such preaching, the sinner is led to understand, that the way he has walked in was the way of misery, death, and hell. Or the word may be derived from meta after, and anoia, madness, which intimates that the whole life of a sinner is no other than a continued course of madness and folly: and if to live in a constant opposition to all the dictates of true wisdom; to wage war with his own best interests in time and eternity; to provoke and insult the living God; and, by habitual sin, to prepare himself only for a state of misery, be evidences of insanity, every sinner exhibits them plentifully. It was from this notion of the word, that the Latins termed repentance resipiscentia, a growing wise again, from re and sapere; or, according to Tertullian, Resipiscentia, quasi receptio mentis ad se, restoring the mind to itself: Contra Marcion, lib. ii. Repentance, then, implies that a measure of Divine wisdom is communicated to the sinner, and that he thereby becomes wise to salvation. That his mind, purposes, opinions, and inclinations, are changed; and that, in consequence, there is a total change in his conduct. It need scarcely be remarked, that, in this state, a man feels deep anguish of soul, because he has sinned against God, unfitted himself for heaven, and exposed his soul to hell. Hence, a true penitent has that sorrow, whereby he forsakes sin, not only because it has been ruinous to his own soul, but because it has been offensive to God.

The kingdom of heaven is at hand] Referring to the prophecy of Daniel, Daniel 7:13,14, where the reign of Christ among men is expressly foretold. This phrase, and the kingdom of God, mean the same thing, viz. the dispensation of infinite mercy, and manifestation of eternal truth, by Christ Jesus, producing the true knowledge of God, accompanied with that worship which is pure and holy, worthy of that God who is its institutor and its object. But why is this called a kingdom? Because it has its laws, all the moral precepts of the Gospel: its subjects, all who believe in Christ Jesus: and its king, the Sovereign of heaven and earth. N. B. Jesus Christ never saved a soul which he did not govern; nor is this Christ precious or estimable to any man who does not feel a spirit of subjection to the Divine will.

But why is it called the kingdom of HEAVEN? Because God designed that his kingdom of grace here should resemble the kingdom of glory above. And hence our Lord teaches us to pray, Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. The kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink, says St. Paul, Romans 14:17; does not consist in the gratification of sensual passions, or worldly ambition; but is righteousness, peace, and joy, in the Holy Ghost. Now what can there be more than this in glory? Righteousness, without mixture of sin; peace, without strife or contention; joy, in the Holy Ghost, spiritual joy, without mixture of misery! And all this, it is possible, by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, to enjoy here below. How then does heaven itself differ from this state? Answer. It makes the righteousness eternal, the peace eternal, and the joy eternal. This is the heaven of heavens! The phrase, kingdom of heaven, שמים מלכות malcuth shamayim, is frequently used by the rabbinical writers, and always means, the purity of the Divine worship, and the blessedness which a righteous man feels when employed in it.

It is farther added, This kingdom is at hand. The dispensation of the glorious Gospel was now about to be fully opened, and the Jews were to have the first offers of salvation. This kingdom is also at hand to us; and wherever Christ crucified is preached, there is salvation to be found. JESUS is proclaimed to thee, O man! as infinitely able and willing to save. Believe in his name-cast thy soul upon his atonement, and enter into rest!

Verse 2. Repent ye, &c. — Be sorry for your sins, and amend your lives; for the original word, metanoeite, here used, implies this. It properly signifies, says Beza, to be wise after the action, and so to grieve for a fault committed as to amend it, which, in Latin, is properly expressed by resipiscere. In this respect it differs from another Greek word, which the evangelists sometimes use, viz., metamelomai, which simply signifies to be distressed, and anxious after any thing done, but does not necessarily imply any change of mind, or reformation of life. Therefore Matthew uses the latter word of Judas, the traitor, Matthew 27:3, but not the former. Thus Christ and his apostles began their preaching, confirming John’s doctrine. John taught other things also, but this he began with, and this was the main scope of his preaching. He did not give them any new precepts of life, but charged them with breaking the law they had already, and called upon them to be sensible of it, sorry for it, and to reform their conduct: to lay aside the false opinions they had imbibed, whether from the Pharisees or Sadducees; to acknowledge, condemn, and lament the faults they had committed, and to turn from all error and all sin, to true faith in, and piety toward, God. He that so deplores some sins as to commit others, or to repeat the commission of those he deplores, either counterfeits, or is ignorant of repentance. Repentance is, as Jerome speaks, secunda post naufragium tabula — a lucky plank after a shipwreck. The first degree of happiness is, not to sin; the second, to know our sins, and repent of them. For repentance not only implies sorrow for sin, or sincerely wishing it undone, but a change of mind, and reformation of life. The kingdom of heaven is at hand — As if he had said, God is about to appear in an extraordinary manner, to erect that kingdom spoken of by Daniel, (Daniel 2:44; and 7:13, 14,) as the kingdom of the God of heaven, which he would set up, and give to the Son of man, making it finally victorious over all other kingdoms. This phrase, the kingdom of heaven, is used thirty times by St. Matthew. The other evangelists, and St. Paul, term it generally, the kingdom of God, and sometimes, the kingdom of Christ. These different phrases mean the same thing, and were in familiar use among the Jews, as plainly appears from divers passages of the gospels. They seem to have borrowed them from the above-mentioned passages in the book of Daniel, which they wholly misunderstood and misinterpreted, inferring from them that God would erect a temporal kingdom the seat of which would be at Jerusalem, which would become, instead of Rome, the capital of the world. The expected sovereign of this kingdom, they learned, from Daniel, to call the Son of man, by which title they understood the promised Messiah, or the Anointed One of God. Both John the Baptist, then, and Christ took up this phrase, and used it as they found it, and gradually taught the Jews to affix right ideas to it, though it was a lesson which that worldly people were remarkably unwilling to learn. This very demand of repentance showed that it was a spiritual kingdom which was spoken of; and that no wicked man, how politic or brave, how learned and renowned soever, could possibly be a genuine subject of it. As the term kingdom implies the dominion of a king over his subjects, so the kingdom of God, or heaven, is God’s reigning in and over his rational creatures, whether angels or men; and, as to the latter, whether on earth or in heaven, that is, whether of the church militant or the church triumphant. The expression properly signifies the gospel dispensation, in and by which subjects were to be gathered to God by his Son, and a society formed, which was to subsist first in more imperfect circumstances on earth, and afterward in complete perfection and felicity in the world of glory. In some places of Scripture the phrase more particularly signifies the former, and denotes the state of Christ’s kingdom on earth, as Matthew 13., especially ver. 41, 47; Matthew 20:1; and sometimes it signifies only that most blessed state of things which shall take place after the resurrection, when God will be all in all. See 1 Corinthians 6:9; and 15:50. But it generally includes both; and what is closely connected therewith, God’s subduing, or executing judgment upon his and his people’s enemies. For God’s regal power is exercised in delivering, assisting, defending, and rewarding all his faithful subjects, and in warning, punishing, and destroying his obdurate enemies. This latter particular, namely, the punishing and destroying his enemies, seems, at least, to be partly meant in this passage, as appears by the context. For, to enforce his doctrine of repentance, he warns them of approaching wrath that would speedily come upon the impenitent, verses 7 and 10, the executing of which wrath, first upon the unbelieving Jews, and then upon the persecuting Gentiles, is elsewhere represented as the coming of the Son of man in his kingdom.

Ver. 2. Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. These brilliant words were the general text of all his future sermons. Metanoew is the current verb in the new testament, and designates, after better instruction, a return from folly to wisdom, from sin to holiness, as when the prodigal, by an eminent display of grace, “came to himself.” It is ever connected with becoming fruits and evidences, as conviction of sin, a fear of punishment, a godly sorrow, earnest prayer, and all the fruits of righteousness, just the reverse of our former sin and folly. — It is a repentance from dead works, to serve the living and true God. Hebrews 6:1.

There is another verb, Metamelomai, by which it is expressed five times in the new testament, and always designates a change of mind, either for good or otherwise. Matthew 27:3. 21:29, 32. 2 Corinthians 7:8. Hebrews 7:21. — This great work of unfeigned repentance and conversion, must be repeated daily for our defects, and especially after all our backslidings from God. Hebrews 6:6. This tender and gracious work is designed to prepare the heart for the reign of grace in the inward kingdom of heaven.

2. Repent — The Jewish nation had in the time of John verged to the extreme point of depravity. Such is the testimony given in the strongest language, and painted in the most vivid colors by their own historian, Josephus. John came therefore to bring about a reformation, in order to set them in fitting state to receive the Messiah. That is, it was his mission to bring them to the moral standard of the Mosaic law, in order to fit them for the Gospel. Like his type Elijah, he was but partially successful; and a captivity, worse than punished Israel for rejecting Elijah, has fallen on Israel for rejecting John.

Kingdom of heaven — As Jesus is the Messiah, that is, the Anointed, that is, the King, so his Gospel is a law, and his dispensation is a kingdom. As a false king, namely, Satan, the adversary, has long maintained on earth the unrightful dominion of hell, so it is Messiah’s mission to come to the earth and raise the kingdom of heaven. This kingdom on earth is the shadow and lower apartment of the kingdom above. Sometimes both the kingdoms, above and below, are contemplated as one. Is at hand — The establishment of this kingdom was predicted by Daniel 2:44: “The God of heaven shall set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.” The kingdom of heaven, expected by the Jews of John’s day, varied according to the views of different individuals and different sects. Generally they expected that the Messiah, a man endowed with attributes more or less divine, would be the founder and monarch of that kingdom. It should be a holy kingdom, rule over all nations, and last forever. Israel would be, instead of Rome, the ruling nation of the earth. At this particular time the dominion of Rome over Judea was oppressive. Palestine was governed by a Roman procurator, who held his capital at Cesarea, leaving Jerusalem in a secondary rank. The national feeling was embittered, and seditions under rebellious leaders were constantly occurring. Hence it was a favorite thought that the Messiah should break the Roman yoke, and rule supremely at Jerusalem.

Verse 2. And saying, Repent ye. — Although metanoew literally signifies, to change one’s opinion, this does by no means express the force of the word, as it is commonly used in the New Testament. There it signifies to be affected with sorrow and remorse for sin, and to be so fully sensible to our spiritual dangers as to turn to God in penitence, confession of sin, renunciation of it, and earnest prayers for forgiveness. The sense of theological terms, as used in the New Testament, must not be rigidly interpreted by Greek etymologies, which, while they amuse, will sometimes mislead.

The kingdom of heaven is at hand. — This phrase, and that of “the kingdom of God,” signify the same thing. Similar expressions, to be found in Jewish writers, who often use them to express the true worship and fear of God, have been referred to in illustration; but Jews are poor commentators upon this phrase, because they never attained to true notions of the kingdom of Messiah. The kingdom here referred to is that which Daniel and other prophets, so explicitly predicted, and the creation of which our Lord, by the public ministry on which he was now entering, was about to commence. It is therefore said by the Baptist to be “at hand.” The very connection of REPENTANCE with this kingdom, as a necessary preparation for men becoming subjects of it, strongly marks its spiritual character. That is, it was not to be a kingdom “of this world;” not to originate in human policy, or to be concerned with merely civil matters. It was not to exhibit a monarch arrayed in external pomp, claiming some particular territory as his dominions, and defending them by arms against invasions; or exercising the office of “a judge and divider” of property, which our Lord expressly on one occasion refused to become, even when solicited. His was the more glorious office of bringing the hearts of men into subjection to the authority of God by moral influence, so that they should make his laws the rule of their private conduct, and the principles of his religion, its justice, mercy, and truth, the basis of all their social and political institutions. This was done by a perfect declaration of the claims of God, and the duties of men; by the work of his Spirit in their hearts, producing repentance for sin, and aversion to it; by reconciling them to God by faith in his sacrifice; by placing the heart under the constant and regenerating influence of grace, and by kindling there the flame of supreme love to God, to render, the service and subjection of men to God voluntary and grateful, universal and absolute. This is the kingdom of God which an apostle so forcibly describes to be “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” It has no parallel; for the establishment of such a sovereignty as this could never enter into the heart of man to conceive; its design and execution equally implied Divine wisdom and Divine power; it is confined to no people, no country, no rank; it addresses itself to no collective bodies, but separately to individuals; and it is only through the multiplication of those individuals themselves, who are brought thus into a state of subjection, that it affects the state and condition of external political society, by the diffusion of the corrective principles of truth, justice, and charity. But in this way it urges forward, and will finally accomplish, those mighty and beneficial changes in the social and political condition of all nations, on which the prophets so rapturously dwell, as the final results of Messiah’s glorious and universal reign. Of this kingdom, so purely spiritual, but which was expressed by the prophets in terms taken from the accidents of earthly monarchies, the Jews could have no just conception, because they interpreted those predictions literally, and in a manner most accordant with their carnal desires and expectations, their national pride, and their haughty ambition. With these notions even the disciples of our Lord himself were so infected, that, though the whole current of his teaching, and the most striking parts of his conduct, tended to correct the error, they were “slow of heart to understand,” and never fully attained to true conceptions of the great subject, until after Christ’s resurrection and ascension to sit, not upon an earthly throne, but upon a heavenly one, as suited to that heavenly kingdom which he was first to establish among men on earth, and to perfect for ever amid the glories of immortality.

V. 3. The way of the Lord-Of Christ.

Make his paths straight-By removing every thing which might prove a hinderance to his gracious appearance. Isaiah 40:3.

Verse 3. The voice of one crying in the wilderness] Or, A voice of a crier in the wilderness. This is quoted from Isaiah 40:3, which clearly proves that John the Baptist was the person of whom the prophet spoke. The idea is taken from the practice of eastern monarchs, who, whenever they entered upon an expedition, or took a journey through a desert country, sent harbingers before them, to prepare all things for their passage; and pioneers to open the passes, to level the ways, and to remove all impediments. The officers appointed to superintend such preparations were called by the Latins, stratores.

Diodorus’s account of the march of Semiramis into Media and Persia, will give us a clear notion of the preparation of the way for a royal expedition. “In her march to Ecbatane, she came to the Zarcean mountain, which, extending many furlongs, and being full of craggy precipices and deep hollows, could not be passed without making a great compass about. Being therefore desirous of leaving an everlasting memorial of herself, as well as shortening the way, she ordered the precipices to be digged down, and the hollows to be filled up; and, at a great expense, she made a shorter and more expeditious road, which, to this day, is called from her, The road of Semiramis. Afterwards she went into Persia, and all the other countries of Asia, subject to her dominion; and, wherever she went, she ordered the mountains and precipices to be levelled, raised causeways in the plain country, and, at a great expense, made the ways passable.” Diod. Sic. lib. ii. and Bp. Lowth.

The Jewish Church was that desert country, to which John was sent, to announce the coming of the Messiah. It was destitute at that time of all religious cultivation, and of the spirit and practice of piety; and John was sent to prepare the way of the Lord, by preaching the doctrine of repentance. The desert is therefore to be considered as affording a proper emblem of the rude state of the Jewish Church, which is the true wilderness meant by the prophet, and in which John was to prepare the way of the promised Messiah. The awful importance of the matter, and the vehemence of the manner of the Baptist’s preaching, probably acquired him the character of the crier, bown.

For the meaning of the word JOHN, see the note on Mark 1:4.

Verse 3. For this is he, &c. — These may be the words of John himself, (comp. John 1:22, 23,) but it is more likely that they are the words of the evangelists; spoken of by the Prophet Esaias, saying, The voice, &c. — Isaiah, in the passage referred to, Isaiah 40:3, &c., is to be understood as speaking first, though not principally, concerning the Jews returning from the Babylonish captivity, as appears from the preceding chapter. As, however, the prophet intended, under the emblem of that deliverance of God’s people, to shadow out a redemption of an infinitely higher and more important nature, the evangelists, with the greatest propriety, apply his words to the opening of the gospel dispensation by the preaching of John, and to the introduction of the kingdom of the Messiah, who was to effect a much greater deliverance of the people of God, Gentiles as well as Jews, from the captivity of sin, and the power of death. And the same thing may be affirmed concerning many other passages of the prophets. See notes on Isaiah 40:3, 4. This expression, The voice of one crying, is as much as to say, A herald is at hand proclaiming. The word crying, implies that John’s testimony concerning Christ was uttered, not secretly, negligently, or doubtfully, but openly and publicly, freely, expressly, and resolutely, with a fervent spirit, and an audible, or strong voice. In the wilderness — These words are generally considered as connected with the preceding, so as to signify that John preached in the wilderness of Judea; and some interpret the expression figuratively as well as literally, and by the wilderness of Judea, understand the desert state of the Jewish Church at that time, destitute of religious culture, and the trees and fruits of righteousness. But Bishop Lowth connects Isaiah’s words with the following clause, and translates them, A voice crieth: In the wilderness prepare ye the way of Jehovah, which he thus interprets: “The prophet hears a crier giving orders, by solemn proclamation, to prepare the way of the Lord in the wilderness; to remove all obstructions before Jehovah marching through the desert; through the wild, uninhabited, and unpassable country;” the idea, he thinks, “being taken from the practice of the eastern monarchs, who, whenever they entered upon an expedition, or took a journey, especially through desert countries, sent harbingers before them to prepare all things for their passage, and pioneers to open the passes, to level the ways, and to remove all impediments.” Thus John the Baptist, the harbinger of Christ, who was God manifest in the flesh, is sent to prepare his way before him, by calling the people to repentance and to faith in him, their great Redeemer and Saviour. Make his paths straight — The paths of our God. Remove all obstructions out of his way, particularly all sin and unbelief, all carnal desires and worldly views, affections, and expectations, that your Saviour and your King may have a ready passage, and free access to your hearts, and may there erect his spiritual kingdom of righteousness, peace, and joy in, and by, the Holy Ghost; and may rule your lives, your whole conversation and conduct by his righteous and holy laws. Though this could only be done by divine grace, and it is grace which prepares for further grace, yet as man must concur with God, and be a worker together with him, John with propriety calls on the people thus to prepare the Lord’s way, that his grace might not be received in vain. The words imply that they were unprepared for receiving the Messiah and his salvation, which indeed they were in every sense, being neither in a fit disposition to relish, or even understand, his doctrine, to be convinced by his miracles, receive his Spirit, follow his example, rely on his mediation, or become his subjects. An earthly, sensual, and devilish disposition had taken possession of their minds and hearts, even the whole spirit of the world, and obstructed the entrance of Christ’s spiritual kingdom into them and among them. It was necessary, therefore, that these hinderances should be removed out of the way, that they might become the true people and followers of the Messiah.

3. This is he that was spoken of by Esaias — Isaiah 40:3-5. I agree with Mr. Watson, that the passage has no reference to the return from Babylon, (as some commentators imagine,) of which it would be no true description.

The voice of one crying — The passage is more fully given by Luke 3:4-6, to which, or to the prophet, the reader should refer. Dr. Thomson says:

“When Ibrahim Pasha proposed to visit certain places on Lebanon, the emeers and sheikhs sent forth a general proclamation, somewhat in the style of Isaiah’s exhortation, to all the inhabitants, to assemble along the proposed route, and prepare the way before him. The same was done in 1845, on a grand scale, when the present sultan visited Brusa. The stones were gathered out, crooked places straightened, and rough ones made level and smooth. I had the benefit of their labour a few days after his majesty’s visit. From customs like these comes the exhortation of John the Baptist: ‘Prepare ye the way of the Lord; make his paths straight,’ etc.”

And so King Messiah is coming with all his train to assume his dominion. Before him a herald comes to prepare the way. The herald’s voice is heard ringing from the wilderness through which He is to march. As before the chariots of ordinary kings, the road must be graded; the elevations must be lowered and the depressions raised; so before this Divine King the very mountains must sink, and the vales must rise to prepare a level for his wheels.

Verse 3. For this is he that was spoken of by the Prophet Esaias, saying, The voice, &c. — These words are supposed by some to have been first spoken of the return of the Jews from the captivity of Babylon, through the desert places which separated the two countries. Bishop Lowth takes this view, but allows that under the emblem of that deliverance a redemption of an infinitely more glorious nature was shadowed out, and that the evangelists, with the greatest propriety, apply the words to the opening of the Gospel dispensation by John the Baptist. But there is no more reason to suppose that this lofty prediction had a primary and an ultimate sense, than that the fifty-third chapter of the same prophet referred first to some person who lived before Christ, and then more perfectly to Christ himself. Many prophecies, indeed, have a double reference, an immediate and an ultimate one, which arose out of that system of typical persons and typical things which we find in Scripture. But it is equally certain that many prophecies of the Old Testament refer to Christ, and to him only, Such, by the acknowledgment of all Christians, is the fifty-third of Isaiah; and whoever reads the section in which the passage in question stands, and which obviously comprehends the first eleven verses of the fortieth chapter of the same book, will perceive that it is as distinct and perfect a portion of prophecy, and possesses as complete a unity as the former, and has no internal marks of reference whatever to any other event beside that personal appearance of Messiah, to he introduced by his harbinger. Bishop Lowth, opens the passage with his usual taste: “The prophet hears a voice giving orders by solemn proclamation, to prepare the way of the Lord in the wilderness, to remove all obstructions before Jehovah marching though the desert; the idea being taken from the practice of eastern monarchs, who sent harbingers before them to prepare all things for their passage, and pioneers to open the passes, to level the ways, and to remove impediments.” But what application there is in all this to the return of the Jews from Babylon, it is impossible to conceive. Had they marched from Babylon, as from Egypt, with the visible cloud of the Divine presence among them there would then have been an adaptation in the terms of the prophecy to the event; “Jehovah” would then have had “his way in the wilderness;” but they returned in scattered parties, without pomp, and especially without any visible presence of the Lord. Isaiah, however, expressly says that the voice cries, “Prepare the way, of the Lord;” and the passage which St. Matthew quotes with brevity, declares that “the glory of the Lord should be revealed, and that all flesh should see it.” It is clear, therefore, that it has no application to the return of the Jews, and refers solely to those events to which the evangelists so explicitly apply it. John the Baptist was “THE VOICE” or herald, and Jesus was the JEHOVAH whose personal appearance as “God manifest in the flesh,” and subsequent glorious manifestation, he proclaimed and prepared.

This mission of John, as the harbinger of our Lord, exhibits another instance of the fulfilment of those prophecies to which St. Matthew, as writing first especially to the Jews, directed their attention more frequently than the other evangelists. At the same time the accomplishment of a prophecy which borrows its terms from the magnificence of eastern monarchs, who were preceded by heralds, and before whom valleys were exalted and hills levelled, in a manner so manifestly spiritual, and turns the attention so absolutely from external to moral grandeur, sufficiently reproves those who contend too strenuously for the literal accomplishment of the sayings of the ancient prophets, and thereby often fall into a Jewish mode of interpreting them. Prophecy has its peculiar imagery, its own appropriate dress of metaphor and allegory, which must not be overlooked. Here, the monarch is Christ, but his majesty is in his doctrine, his character, and his works. The herald, too, is a man in rough raiment, issuing from the wild solitudes in which he had been trained to converse with God, to rouse a slumbering people by urging their immediate repentance upon pain of imminent judgments; and the levelling of hills and valleys is that preparation of the heart for the doctrine of Christ which consists in contrition and humility. That the Baptist was a powerful preacher, the immense number of persons who flocked to his baptism, confessing their sins, is a sufficient proof; that he was a successful one, in his special office of “preparing the way of the Lord,” appears from this, that several of the apostles and others of the early disciples of Christ had been previously the disciples of John; and the effect of his preaching was, no doubt, not only to prepare them, but multitudes of the Jews, to receive the Gospel, both in Judea and in other places into which his disciples carried his doctrine; for of this the evangelical history contains many indications. There was also probably in this dispensation of John the Baptist something of a typical character. The way of Christ in all ages is “prepared” only by repentance; and wherever that is preached with power, and under right views of the Lamb of God, to which it is to point, as “taking away the sins of the world,” the valleys are exalted, the mountains and hills are brought low, the crooked is made straight, and the rough places plain; and then comes the revelation of the Lord in pardoning mercy, and manifestation of Christ as “the salvation of God.”

The ministry of the Baptist was of a kind peculiar to itself. As a prophet, he not only spoke of the immediate appearing of the Christ, but pointed him out to his disciples; and his baptism was in fact the token of initiation into a new dispensation intermediate between that of Moses and fully revealed Christianity. It was a declaration of repentance and renunciation of sin, and it was a profession of faith in the immediate revelation of the Messiah, and of trust in him to take away sin; for to him as the Redeemer John directed his converts. “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.” With baptisms or washings, as emblems of the putting, away of sin, the Jews were familiar; and proselytes from Gentilism to the religion of the Jews were baptized as well as circumcised in token of the same thing, and the renunciation of their old religion. All the Jews therefore, who in truth, and with a right understanding of the case, submitted to John’s baptism, so far renounced Judaism in its primitive form as a ground of hope as to wait for the remission of the sins they repented of and confessed no longer from their accustomed sacrifices, but immediately from the Messiah: “Behold,” said John, “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” Lightfoot has showed from the rabbinical writings, that the Jews themselves have held, and still hold, that repentance should precede the coming of Messiah. The circumstance of our Lord’s submission to John’s baptism does not affect this view of its nature and design. That it was not necessary for Christ, as a sign of repentance, and passing into a new dispensation and better hopes of salvation, is clear from the objecting of John to administer the peculiar rite of his ministry to Christ until urged by his authority; and also from the ground on which our Lord puts his own act, which he makes not an act of repentance, but of fulfilling all “righteousness,” that is, perfectly obeying the will of the Father in every appointment laid upon him; and finally, from the baptism of John as administered to Christ, rising into an entirely different and higher order from his ordinary one; for our Lord was then “baptized with the Holy Ghost,” which it was no part of John’s baptism to impart. All these circumstances prove that John was, in the case of our Lord, employed in a ministry quite distinct from his common one; and that the chief end of the baptism of Christ was to attest his Messiahship fully, to John, by making him the witness of the sign which God had previously appointed. “Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.”

V. 4. John had his raiment of camels' hair-Coarse and rough, suiting his character and doctrine.

A leathern girdle-Like Elijah, in whose spirit and power he came. His food was locusts and wild honey-Locusts are ranked among clean meats, Leviticus 11:22. But these were not always to be had. So in default of those, he fed on wild honey.

Verse 4. His raiment of camel’s hair] A sort of coarse or rough covering, which, it appears, was common to the prophets, Zechariah 13:4. In such a garment we find Elijah clothed, 2 Kings 1:8. And as John had been designed under the name of this prophet, Malachi 4:5, whose spirit and qualifications he was to possess, Luke 1:17, he took the same habit and lived in the same state of self-denial. His meat was locusts] akridev. akriv may either signify the insect called the locust, which still makes a part of the food in the land of Judea; or the top of a plant. Many eminent commentators are of the latter opinion; but the first is the most likely. The Saxon translator has [Anglo-Saxon] grasshoppers.

Wild honey.] Such as he got in the rocks and hollows of trees, and which abounded in Judea: see 1 Samuel 14:26. It is most likely that the dried locusts, which are an article of food in Asiatic countries to the present day, were fried in the honey, or compounded in some manner with it. The Gospel according to the Hebrews, as quoted by Epiphanius, seems to have taken a similar view of the subject, as it adds here to the text, ou h geusiv hn tou manna, wv egkriv en elaiw. And its taste was like manna, as a sweet cake baked in oil.

Verse 4. And the same John — The following description of John is added, that it might appear he did not live in obscurity, but was sufficiently known to all: had his raiment of camel’s hair — Not, as some have supposed, a camel’s skin, raw and undressed, but a kind of sackcloth, coarse and rough, made of the raw long hair of camels, and not of their fine and soft hair, dressed and spun into thread. The difference between these two is as great as that between flax rude or unprepared, and the same dressed or spun; or between that which we now call hair cloth, made of undressed hair, and camlet, that is made of it when it is softened, and spun, and prepared; in imitation of which, though made of wool, is the English camlet. Elijah seems to have wore a similar garment, and therefore was called a hairy man; which expression is supposed to refer to his clothing rather than his body. Most of the ancient prophets wore such garments, whence we read of the false prophets putting on a rough garment to deceive, Zechariah 13:4; and of the witnesses prophesying in sackcloth, Revelation 6:12; and 11:3. And a leathern girdle about his loins — In this respect, also, being like Elijah, in whose spirit and power he came, Malachi 4:5; Luke 1:17. Hereby, as also by his spare diet, he gave an example of repentance, and of his expectation of a heavenly kingdom. And his meat was locusts — The insects called locusts are undoubtedly intended, a kind of large-winged grasshoppers. See Revelation 9:3, 7,

9. It is true, according to Sandys (Trav. p. 183) and many others, it appears there is, in these parts, a shrub termed the locust tree, the buds of which resemble asparagus; yet it is not probable that this is here meant, nor the wild fruits of any trees, nor the tops of herbs and plants, as some, both ancients and moderns, have supposed; because the original word here used, in the LXX. and elsewhere, generally signifies the animal which we call a locust, which it is certain the law allowed the Jews to eat, and which, Pliny assures us, made a considerable part of the food of the Parthians and Ethiopians. Dr. Shaw tells us that when sprinkled with salt and fried they taste much like the river cray-fish. See his excellent Travels, p. 258. And wild honey — Such as, in those parts, was often found in hollow trees, or in the clefts of the rocks, 1 Samuel 14:26; Judges 14:8; Psalm 81:16. John used such a diet and such clothing as was cheap and easily obtained. He drank no wine, and frequently fasted, not through poverty, for he was the only son of a priest, but of his own free-will, as well that his severe and mortified manner of life might correspond with his doctrine, which enjoined frequent fasting to his disciples, as that in this way he might fortify both his body and mind, and prepare himself to undergo dangers, imprisonment, and death undauntedly. As the months of April and May are the time when locusts abound, it has been conjectured that John began his ministry about that season of the year, which might also seem more convenient for receiving, and especially for baptizing, so great a number of people, than the winter could have been.

Ver. 4. His meat was locusts and wild honey, or honey taken out of hollow trees. The species of locust are very numerous. Some are about the size of a man’s little finger. “The Bushmen in South Africa, not only eat them, but dry them in the sun, and pound them as a substitute for bread.” Campbell’s Travels. Baronius contends however, that acrides signifies the tops of vegetables and trees, as well as insects. See the note on the locust, Exodus 10:4. Joel 1:4.

4. Raiment of camel’s hair — Of the finer hair of the camel an elegant kind of cloth is manufactured in the East called camlet. Of this our European and American camlet is an imitation, made of wool. But John’s garment was a coarse stuff, woven of the long and shaggy hair of the camel, such as was anciently worn by monks and anchorites. It was not, therefore, as some imagine, the camel’s skin. So his type Elijah was a hairy man in his dress. 2 Kings 1:8. So the false prophets imitated him by wearing a rough garment to deceive. Zechariah 13:4. Elijah also was girt with a leathern girdle about his loins. 2 Kings 1:8. It was customary to wear a girdle around the waist, in order to confine the loose dress to its place. Meat — Food. This sense of the word, like most of the peculiarities of phrase in the Scripture, is the old English mode in use when the Bible was translated. Locusts — The law of Moses gave permission to eat locusts. “These may ye eat, of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four… the locust after his kind, and the bald locust,” etc. Leviticus 11:21. The Eastern locust is a food of a poor kind. On this subject Dr. Thomson says: “Do you suppose that the meat of John the Baptist was literally locusts and wild honey? Why not? by the Arabs they are eaten to this day. The perfectly trustworthy Burckhardt thus speaks on this subject: ‘All the Bedouins of Arabia, and the inhabitants of towns in Nejd and Hedjaz are accustomed to eat locusts.’ ‘I have seen at Medina and Tayf locust shops where these animals were sold by measure. In Egypt and Nubia they are only eaten by the poorest beggars.’ ‘The Arabs, in preparing locusts as an article of food, throw them alive into boiling water with which a good deal of salt has been mixed. After a few minutes they are taken out and dried in the sun; the head, feet, and wings are then torn off; the bodies are cleansed from the salt and perfectly dried, after which process whole sacks are filled with them by the Bedouin. They are sometimes eaten boiled in butter, and they often contribute materials for a breakfast when spread over unleavened bread mixed with butter.’ Thus far Burckhardt. Locusts are not eaten in Syria by any but the Bedouin on the extreme frontiers, and it is always spoken of as a very inferior article of food, and regarded by most with disgust and loathing — tolerated only by the very poorest people. John the Baptist, however, was of this class, either from necessity or election. He also dwelt in the desert, where such food was and is still used, and therefore the text states the simple truth. His ordinary ‘meat’ was dried locusts; probably fried in butter and mixed with honey, as is still frequently done. This honey, too, was the article made by bees, and not dibs from grapes, nor dates from the palm, nor anything else which ingenious commentators have invented. Wild honey is still gathered in large quantities from trees in the wilderness, and from rocks in the wadies, just where the Baptist sojourned, and where he came preaching the baptism of repentance.” Wild honey — The chance honey produced by wild bees in hollow trees or clefts of rocks. So 1 Samuel 14:25: “All they of the land came to a wood; and there was honey upon the ground. And when the people came into the wood, behold the honey dropped.” This coarse and wild diet was intended by John, as well as by Elijah, to represent a perpetual fast.

John here presents the symbols of the repentance he preaches, according to ancient customs. The hair or sackcloth, the fasting and the solitude, were the ordinary outward signs of deepest humiliation. The whole process was a mode of saying: “We confess ourselves by sin unworthy of every blessing, even of food and raiment, and deserving to be sunk into humiliation and woe.” And John did not this for himself, but for the people. He was their representative. He was showing them by sign, as well as by word, what they ought to be and do. At the same time, by retreating from all society, he was protesting against the unutterable apostacy of the whole social system.

Verse 4. Raiment of camel’s hair, &c. — John wore the same dress as Elijah, or, as it is written in the New Testament, Elias, in whose “spirit and power” he came, and whose name he figuratively bore. “He was a hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins. And he said, It is Elijah the Tishbite,” 2 Kings 1:8. This garment was not of the fine hair of the camel, spun and woven, of which a soft cloth was made, called hlymt, from which our camblet is derived; but either the skin of the camel dressed with the hair, or a rough fabric manufactured from the coarser pile. This was worn by the prophets, not for purposes of bodily mortification, as some have dreamed; but yet in a spirit of self-denial. Locusts and wild honey. — The latter, meli agrion, was produced by bees which collected in trunks of trees and in rocks, throughout Palestine; thus, Psalm 81:16, we read, “honey out of the stony rock.” The former, akridev, has been made the subject of conjectural and emendatory criticism; but the real locust dried is used as food throughout the east, and some of the species were permitted to be eaten by the law, Leviticus 11:22. The rabbins state that it was usual for the Jews to hunt after locusts for food.

Verse 5. Jordan] Many of the best MSS. and versions, with Mark 1:5, add potamw, the river Jordan; but the definitive article, with which the word is generally accompanied, both in the Hebrew and the Greek, is, sufficient; and our article the, which should ever be used in the translation, expresses the force of the other.

Verse 5. Then went out to him Jerusalem — That is, the citizens of it, famed as they were for wisdom and virtue: and all Judea, &c. — The preacher being described, the evangelist proceeds to tell us what auditors he had. All sorts and ranks of persons, and the generality of the people there, flocked to hear him. The uncommon circumstances of John’s public appearance could scarcely fail to awaken the attention of the people to his person and ministry, which would be yet more excited by the time of it: for the Roman yoke began to bear hard upon them, and their uneasiness under it raised in their minds the most impatient desire of the Messiah’s arrival, by whom they expected not only deliverance, but universal monarchy. No wonder, therefore, that they flocked to the Baptist from all parts, and listened attentively while he proclaimed this long-expected Messiah’s approach, and denounced the divine vengeance upon such as rejected him. Add to this, the novelty of a prophet’s appearance in Israel, (for it seems they had had none among them since Malachi’s time;) the family of John, the circumstances of his birth, and the extraordinary character he had no doubt maintained for strict and undissembled piety; the new doctrine he taught, and his fervent manner of urging it, together with the new rite of baptism which he brought in; — all concurred, with the cause mentioned above, to draw such vast multitudes after him. And, it appears, great numbers of them were brought under very serious impressions by his faithful remonstrances, expostulations, and warnings. Here we observe a remarkable difference between John and Jesus. That the people might hear John they were under the necessity of going out of the city, and travelling to him into the desert: but Jesus, of his own accord, went to his hearers.

5. Went out — Left their homes and went to the desert. Jerusalem, and all Judea — Never was preacher, for the time, more successful than John. At his voice from the wilderness the heart of the whole nation was stirred. When they beheld his stern form their spirits were awed. When he announced the kingdom of heaven their expectations were roused. At no time perhaps did the preaching of Jesus himself produce so great a movement. Nor did the common people ever lose their reverence for the Baptist; the rulers never dared deny that he was a prophet, lest they should be stoned by the people. So prominent did he become, that Josephus, who, perhaps, never referred to Christ, did, as we shall remark in our notes upon the twelfth chapter, mention John the Baptist. Nor at this day are there wanting skeptics who affirm that John was the superior of Jesus. Yet the excitement of John’s preaching was but temporary; but for Jesus his name would be almost unknown; while the seed quietly sowed by Jesus, growing in secret, hath become the great tree which fills, and shall fill the earth. The whole social mass was moved. All about Jordan — On both sides. There could have scarce been less than millions. There was once three millions of Jews at one passover. This was a movement of another kind, but no less numerous.

V. 6. Confessing their sins-Of their own accord; freely and openly. Such prodigious numbers could hardly be baptized by immerging their whole bodies under water: nor can we think they were provided with change of raiment for it, which was scarcely practicable for such vast multitudes. And yet they could not be immerged naked with modesty, nor in their wearing apparel with safety. It seems, therefore, that they stood in ranks on the edge of the river, and that John, passing along before them, cast water on their heads or faces, by which means he might baptize many thousands in a day. And this way most naturally signified Christ's baptizing them with the Holy Ghost and with fire, which John spoke of, as prefigured by his baptizing with water, and which was eminently fulfilled, when the Holy Ghost sat upon the disciples in the appearance of tongues, or flames of fire.

Verse 6. Were baptized] In what form baptism was originally administered, has been deemed a subject worthy of serious dispute. Were the people dipped or sprinkled? for it is certain baptw and baptizw mean both. They were all dipped, say some. Can any man suppose that it was possible for John to dip all the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea, and of all the country round about the Jordan? Were both men and women dipped, for certainly both came to his baptism? This could never have comported either with safety or with decency. Were they dipped in their clothes? This would have endangered their lives, if they had not with them change of raiment: and as such a baptism as John’s (however administered) was, in several respects, a new thing in Judea, it is not at all likely that the people would come thus provided. But suppose these were dipped, which I think it would be impossible to prove, does it follow that, in all regions of the world, men and women must be dipped, in order to be evangelically baptized? In the eastern countries, bathings were frequent, because of the heat of the climate, it being there so necessary to cleanliness and health; but could our climate, or a more northerly one, admit of this with safety, for at least three-fourths of the year? We may rest assured that it could not. And may we not presume, that if John had opened his commission in the north of Great Britain, for many months of the year, he would have dipped neither man nor woman, unless he could have procured a tepid bath? Those who are dipped or immersed in water, in the name of the Holy Trinity, I believe to be evangelically baptized-those who are washed or sprinkled with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, I believe to be equally so; and the repetition of such a baptism I believe to be profane. Others have a right to believe the contrary, if they see good. After all, it is the thing signified, and not the mode, which is the essential part of the sacrament. See the note on Mark 10:16. Confessing their sins.] exomologoumenoi, earnestly acknowledging that their sins were their own. And thus taking the whole blame upon themselves, and laying nothing to the charge of GOD or man. This is essential to true repentance; and, till a man take the whole blame on himself, he cannot feel the absolute need he has of casting his soul on the mercy of God, that he may be saved.

Verse 6. And were baptized of him in Jordan — Namely, those that were awakened to repentance. It has been questioned by many, whether John baptized these immense multitudes by dipping them in Jordan? In answer to which it has been observed, “that such prodigious numbers could hardly be baptized by immerging their whole bodies under water: nor can we think they were provided with change of raiment for it, which was scarce practicable for such vast multitudes. And yet they could not be immerged naked with modesty, nor in their wearing apparel with safety.” It has been thought, therefore, “that they stood in ranks on the edge of the river, and that John, passing along before them, cast water on their heads, or faces, by which means, he might baptize many thousands in a day.” This, it must be confessed, most naturally signified Christ’s baptizing them with the Holy Ghost and with fire, which John spoke of as prefigured by his baptizing with water: and which was eminently fulfilled when the Holy Ghost sat upon the disciples, in the appearance of tongues, or flames of fire. But be this as it may: supposing that John baptized by immersion, it will not follow from hence, that immersion is essential to baptism; the washing of the soul from the guilt of sin, by the blood of Christ, or from the power and pollution of sin, by the Spirit of God, (the things signified by baptism,) being expressed by sprinkling or pouring water on a person, as well as by plunging him in it. See Isaiah 44:3; Ezekiel 36:25; Colossians 2:12. And as Cyprian observes, in his 76th Epistle to Magnus: “Baptism is rather of the mind by faith, than of the body by immersion in water: this being only a visible sign of an invisible baptism.” It is admired by some, that this practice of John did not excite more stir, and meet with more opposition among the Jews. But it must be observed, that baptizing was not a ceremony entirely new. For, “there were two kinds of baptism in use among the Jews; one was that of the priests at their consecration, Leviticus 8:6; the other was that of the heathens proselyted to the Jewish religion. It was, therefore, no unheard-of rite which the Messiah’s harbinger made use of. His countrymen were well acquainted both with the thing itself and its signification. They knew that it denoted some great change, either in the opinions or practices of those who submitted to it, and implied a promise of acceptance with God. Moreover, they had been led by a passage in their sacred books, Zechariah 13:1, to expect, that either the Messiah himself, or some of his attendants, would baptize; as is evident from the question which the messengers of the Sanhedrim put to the Baptist, John 1:25: Why baptizest thou, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias? They must have known, therefore, that John’s baptism represented purification both of heart and life, as necessary even to Jews themselves, before they could become the subjects of so holy a prince as the Messiah; and that it was a solemn obligation, binding those who received it to lead such lives. Hence, as Dr. Whitby observes, they are mistaken who think John’s baptism the same in kind with that which Christ afterward instituted, for admission of disciples into his Church. The difference between the two was considerable: 1st, John did not baptize either in the name of Christ, or of the Holy Ghost; much less did he baptize them with the Holy Ghost, a circumstance mentioned by himself, as what remarkably distinguished Christ’s baptism from his. 2, They who were baptized with John’s baptism did not profess their faith in the Messiah as actually come, neither did they receive his baptism, in testimony of their entertaining that belief; for after having administered it he exhorted his disciples to believe on Him who was to come. Therefore his baptism could not initiate men into the Christian Church, as appears likewise by the apostles’ rebaptizing some who had been baptized by John. Acts 19:4, 5. 3d, John’s was the baptism of repentance, whereby all that had a sense of their sins, and professed repentance, were promised pardon, and exhorted to believe in the Messiah, who was soon to appear. Or, it was a washing with water, to show the Jews that they must be cleansed, not only from their prejudices and vices, but that they must relinquish Judaism in order to their becoming fit members of the Messiah’s kingdom.” — Macknight. Indeed, John, properly speaking, was not a gospel minister, nor his ministry a gospel ministry; for that state of the Church was not then begun; but, as he was a middle person between both testaments, greater than the prophets, less than a gospel minister, Matthew 11:11, 13, so his ministry was a sort of middle ministry, the chief drift whereof was to prepare people to receive Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Messiah: in order whereunto he laboured to convince them of their sins, and their need of a Saviour, by preaching repentance, verse 2; and pointed out the Messiah to them, John 1:29; and baptized them as a sign of repentance, on their part, and an assurance of pardon on God’s part. John’s baptism, therefore, was only a temporary sacrament or institution, set up upon a particular occasion; which, as it agreed with Christ’s in the external sign, so was perfected by his. See Grotius. Confessing their sins — Acknowledging their offences, and condemning their former lives, and that freely and of their own accord: for it does not appear that the Baptist required them to do it. It is not said whether this confession was made to God or man: but it is probable it was to both: only, so far as it was made to John, it must have been merely general. For how could one man have sufficed to hearken to a particular confession of all the offences of this immense multitude made secretly in his ears. It seems to have been like the confessions recorded in the Old Testament; (see Ezra 9.; Nehemiah 9.; Daniel 9.;) and that made by the high priest on the day of atonement, Leviticus 16:21. They acknowledged in words their sinfulness and guilt, professed repentance for, and a detestation of all their sins, and submitted to be baptized in token of their being convinced of their need of pardon and purification. And it must be observed, that this was the confession, not of persons who had been baptized, concerning sins committed after baptism, but of those who were to be baptized. It therefore differs widely from, and gives no countenance to, the auricular confession of the Church of Rome.

6. In Jordan — The Jordan had several banks within banks, so that a person could be in the Jordan on dry ground. “In approaching the river,” says Dr. Thomson, “you descend several benches or terraces.” This expression, “in the Jordan,” only indicates, therefore, where the rite was performed; it in no way indicates the mode.

The JORDAN is, historically, the most interesting river in the world. It derives its sources from the snows of the Lebanon, whence it flows down to the Lake Gennesaret, through which it passes. Its current through the middle of that lake is distinctly visible. Thence it descends, through a distance of about sixty miles, to the Dead Sea. Its channel is very serpentine, but it trends, very directly, toward the south. The narrow plain upon its banks is usually very fertile, it is calculated to be, on the average, about thirty yards wide and nine feet deep, and its current is very rapid.

Confessing their sins — Thus acknowledging that repentance was the object of their baptism. This act of repentance and baptism, under the administration of John, truly performed, had two effects: 1. It placed the subjects of the baptism in a present state of grace and favour with God. 2. It placed the heart in a right state to receive the coming king — Messiah — even in his mild and spiritual form, and to enter into his coming kingdom. Perseverance in the same temper, and progress in the same direction, would have brought them to the purposed result. It was by apostacy that Israel lost the Saviour.

Verse 6. And were baptized. — That is, as John himself explains it, “with water unto repentance.” See note on verse 3.

In Jordan. — Water, for the baptism of such multitudes, could only be procured from the river, in a part of the country where springs and fountains were not found, or were private property. That the people were immersed with their clothes on, it would be absurd to suppose; that they were baptized naked, would be an indecent assumption; and that dresses should have been provided, is impossible. They, no doubt, went down to the water’s edge, and then the element was poured upon them; for the expression, “baptized IN Jordan,” means no more than within the banks of Jordan, that is, in the bed of the river, which had a double bank, because of its great overflow at certain seasons.

Confessing their sins. — Not unto John, but unto God; though, being powerfully affected by his awakening sermons, they probably did this audibly. Yet even this does not certainly appear; for the very nature of the rite of baptism, as practised by John, implied confession of sin, a pleading guilty to his reproofs, and a resolution to seek remission of sins from the Messiah who was immediately to succeed him. If there was more than this tacit acknowledgment of sin, it was probably like that mentioned in Ezra 10:1, where Ezra himself expressed the confession, and the congregation “wept very sore.” A similar scene is described in Nehemiah 9. The immense multitudes which came to John would necessarily prevent a particular confession being made to him by each individual. Of these multitudes we may infer from singling out the hypocritical Pharisees and Sadducees for reproof, that a great proportion were sincerely penitent. So powerful was the ministry of this extraordinary messenger of God.

V. 7. The Pharisees were a very ancient sect among the Jews. They took their name from a Hebrew word, which signifies to separate, because they separated themselves from all other men. They were outwardly strict observers of the law, fasted often, made long prayers, rigorously kept the Sabbath, and paid all tithe, even of mint, anise, and cummin. Hence they were in high esteem among the people. But inwardly, they were full of pride and hypocrisy.

The Sadducees were another sect among the Jews, only not so considerable as the Pharisees. They denied the existence of angels, and the immortality of the soul, and by consequence the resurrection of the dead. Ye brood of vipers-In like manner, the crafty Herod is styled a fox, and persons of insidious, ravenous, profane, or sensual dispositions, are named respectively by him who saw their hearts, serpents, dogs, wolves, and swine; terms which are not the random language of passion, but a judicious designation of the persons meant by them. For it was fitting such men should be marked out, either for a caution to others, or a warning to themselves.

Verse 7. Pharisees] A very numerous sect among the Jews, who, in their origin, were, very probably, a pure and holy people. It is likely that they got the name of Pharisees, i.e. Separatists, (from vrp pharash, to separate,) from their separating themselves from the pollution of the Jewish national worship; and hence, the word in the Anglo-saxon version is [Anglo-Saxon], holy persons who stand apart, or by themselves: but, in process of time, like all religious sects and parties, they degenerated: they lost the spirit of their institution, they ceased to recur to first principles, and had only the form of godliness, when Jesus Christ preached in Judea; for he bore witness, that they did make the outside of the cup and platter clean-they observed the rules of their institution, but the spirit was gone. Sadducees] A sect who denied the existence of angels and spirits, consequently all Divine influence and inspiration, and also the resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees of that time were the Materialists and Deists of the Jewish nation. When the sect of the Pharisees arose cannot be distinctly ascertained; but it is supposed to have been some time after the Babylonish captivity. The sect of the Sadducees were the followers of one Sadok, a disciple of Antigonus Sochaeus, who flourished about three centuries before Christ. There was a third sect among the Jews, called the Essenes or Essenians, of whom I shall have occasion to speak on Matthew 19:12.

Come to his baptism] The Æthiopic version adds the word privately here, the translator probably having read laqra in his copy, which gives a very remarkable turn to the passage. The multitudes, who had no worldly interest to support, no character to maintain by living in their usual way, came publicly, and openly acknowledged that they were SINNERS; and stood in need of mercy. The others, who endeavoured to secure their worldly interests by making a fair show in the flesh, are supposed to have come privately, that they might not be exposed to reproach; and that they might not lose their reputation for wisdom and sanctity, which their consciences, under the preaching of the Baptist, told them they had no right to. See below.

O generation of vipers] gennhmata ecidnwn. A terribly expressive speech. A serpentine brood, from a serpentine stock. As their fathers were, so were they, children of the wicked one. This is God’s estimate of a SINNER, whether he wade in wealth, or soar in fame. The Jews were the seed of the serpent, who should bruise the heel of the woman’s seed, and whose head should be bruised by him.

Who hath warned you] Or, privately shown you. tiv epedixen-from upo, under, and deiknumai, to show. Does not this seem to allude to the reading of the Æthiopic noticed above? They came privately: and John may be supposed to address them thus: “Did any person give you a private warning? No, you received your convictions under the public ministry of the word. The multitudes of the poor and wretched, who have been convinced of sin, have publicly acknowledged their crimes, and sought mercy-God will unmask you-you have deceived the people-you have deceived yourselves-you must appear just what you are; and, if you expect mercy from God, act like the penitent multitude, and bring forth FRUIT worthy of repentance. Do not begin to trifle with your convictions, by thinking, that because you are descendants of Abraham, therefore you are entitled to God’s favour; God can, out of these stones (pointing probably to those scattered about in the desert, which he appears to have considered as an emblem of the Gentiles) raise up a faithful seed, who, though not natural descendants of your excellent patriarch, yet shall be his worthy children, as being partakers of his faith, and friends of his God.” It should be added, that the Greek word also signifies plain or ample information. See on Luke 6:47.

The wrath to come?] The desolation which was about to fall on the Jewish nation for their wickedness, and threatened in the last words of their own Scriptures. See Malachi 4:6. Lest I come and smite the earth xrah ta (et ha-arets, this very land) with a curse. This wrath or curse was coming: they did not prevent it by turning to God, and receiving the Messiah, and therefore the wrath of God came upon them to the uttermost. Let him that readeth understand.

Verse 7. When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees, &c. — These are not names of office, but of sects, or sorts of persons of different opinions in matters of religion. There were three religious sects among the Jews, — the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. Of the latter, indeed, we read nothing in the Holy Scriptures. We shall only, therefore, observe concerning them, that their way of life was very singular. They did not marry, but adopted the children of others, whom they brought up in the institutions of their sect. They despised riches, and had all things in common, and never changed their clothes till they were entirely worn out. When initiated they were strictly bound not to communicate the mysteries of their sect to others; and if any of their members were found guilty of any enormous crime they were expelled. As to their doctrine, they allowed a future state, but denied the resurrection of the body. The reason why we find no mention of them in the New Testament may be their recluse and retired way of life, no less than their great simplicity and honesty, in consequence of which they lay open to no censure or reproof. — The Pharisees were a very ancient sect. They are said to have made their first appearance about 150 years before Christ. It is certain from the account given by Josephus, Ant., lib. 12., cap. 10., sect. 5, 6, that in the time of John Hyrcanus, the high priest, about 108 years before Christ, the sect was not only formed, but made a considerable figure; and that it had advanced to a high degree of popularity and power about thirty years after that period. They took their name from the Hebrew word srp, pharas, which signifies to separate, because they seemed to separate themselves from all others by their peculiar manner of living. They pretended to have greater knowledge of the rites of the Jewish worship and of the customs of their country than other people, and were very strict in the observance of them, as also of all the traditions of the elders. They fasted often, made long prayers, rigorously kept the sabbath, and put on an appearance of great sanctity, with much display of zeal for Moses and the law. On all these accounts they were in high esteem among the people: and some of them, we have reason to hope, had a measure of true piety; but it is evident from several of the discourses of our Lord, recorded by the evangelists, that they were in general devoid of that humility, and sincere love of God, which are essential to true religion. Though they acknowledged the existence of angels, the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, and a future state of rewards and punishments, yet they were involved in many great and destructive errors, both in principle and practice. They held the unwritten traditions of the elders to be of equal authority with the written word, pretending that both were delivered to Moses from mount Sinai. From their rigorous observance of these traditions they considered themselves as more holy than other men, and held their own righteousness to be sufficient for their justification before God; having no proper conception of the spirituality, extent, and obligation of the divine law. Accordingly they neglected the weightier matters of it, justice, mercy, and the love of God, and rendered its holy precepts of none effect through their traditions, while they were scrupulously exact in little and trivial things, such as washing cups, &c., Mark 4., and tithing mint, anise, and cummin. The Sadducees also were a sect of great antiquity, having existed, as well as the Pharisees, according to Josephus, from the time of the Maccabees. They had their name from their founder, Sadoc. Antigonus of Socho, president of the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, and teacher of the law in the divinity school in that city, having often in his lectures asserted to his scholars that they ought not to serve God in a servile manner, with respect to reward, but only out of filial love and fear; two of his scholars, Sadoc and Baithus, inferred from thence that there were no rewards or punishments after this life; and therefore, separating from the school of their master, they taught that there was no resurrection nor future state. Many embracing this opinion gave rise to the sect of the Sadducees, who were a kind of Epicureans, but differing from them in this, that, though they denied a future state, yet they allowed that the world was created by the power of God, and governed by his providence, whereas the followers of Epicurus denied both. The Sadducees, says Luke, (Acts 23:8,) say, there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit. Add to this, that they not only rejected all unwritten traditions, but all the books of the Old Testament, excepting those of Moses. They were not very numerous, but being the wealthiest of the three sects, the rich and great gave in to their opinions; whereas the people were firm in the interest of the Pharisees, and so attached to their notions, that, if a Pharisee should happen to throw out reflections, either upon the high priest or king, he was sure to be believed; for every thing that concerned divine worship was regulated by the Pharisees. So that when the Sadducees took upon them any public employment they were obliged, though never so much against their own interest, to obey the injunction of the Pharisees, which had they presumed to refuse, the consequences would have been dangerous, and would have set the people in an uproar. O generation of vipers — A wicked offspring of wicked parents, crafty, malignant, mischievous creatures. In like manner the crafty Herod is styled a fox, and persons of insidious, ravenous, profane, or sensual dispositions, are named respectively by Him who saw their hearts, serpents, dogs, wolves, and swine; terms which are not the random language of passion, but a judicious designation of the persons meant by them. For it was fitting such men should be marked out, either for a caution to others, or a warning to themselves. Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? — To put on this form of humility and repentance? What hath moved you to it? How came you to think yourselves in any danger of divine and future wrath, or to use any means to escape it? since you Pharisees think yourselves secure from it, on account of the sanctity of your lives, and you Sadducees imagine there is no such wrath, and that all that is spoken of it is a mere fable and delusion?

Ver. 7. The Pharisees and Sadducees. The former were a sect of learned men zealous for the law, and were distinguished as religious characters by their dress. In the time of Josephus their number was about six thousand, that is, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. Women were not excluded from this sect. This religious order was formed about one hundred years before our Saviour’s time. They engaged to keep every iota of the law; to fast twice a week, pray, and give alms. They were famed for sanctity of manners, but neglected judgment, mercy, and faith. Our Saviour sometimes calls them hypocrites; but Pliny calls them degenerate dogs, and black sheep. The Sadducees were of equal rank with the Pharisees; and the sect originated with Zadok. They were called Baithuses, and in Egypt the Karaites. They denied a future state, and consequently the existence of angels or spirits. They quarrelled with the temple worship which said, for ever and ever, or from age to age. This wicked and infidel sect arose about the time that Malachi died. See Matthew 22:23.

Come to his baptism. The jews baptized proselytes in whole families, the man, the woman, and all their children, in order that they might be saved from the sins of the age and the punishments coming on the world, as Noah and his sons were saved by water in the ark. By the like figure, says an apostle, does baptism now save us. 1 Peter 3:21. Peter also said to the jews, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation.”

Dr. Lightfoot, who understood Hebrew better than the rabbins of his age, and was superior to any christian critic in the sacred tongue, brings here and elsewhere many quotations to prove the baptism of children. First, “they baptize a little proselyte according to the judgment of the sanhedrim;” that is, as the gloss reads, “If he be deprived of his father, and if his mother bring him to be made a proselyte, because none becomes a proselyte without circumcision and baptism, according to the judgment of the sanhedrim; that is, unless three men be present at his baptism, who are now to him instead of a father.” Bab. Cherubb, fol. 2. This proves that godfathers were only for orphan children.

Dr. Lightfoot brings a second proof of infant baptism from the Gemara, which a little after says, “If the sons and daughters of a proselyte are made proselytes, that which is done by their father redounds to their good. But rabbi Joseph says, when they come to years, they may retract.” The gloss adds, “This is to be understood of little children, who are made proselytes together with their father.” — “If an Israelite take a gentile child, or find a gentile infant, and baptise him in the name of a proselyte, behold he is a proselyte.”

Now, the disciples of Christ finding baptism in use among the jews did not alter it, they only applied it towards its proper object; viz. they baptized with water unto repentance: ver. 11. They baptized in the name of Jesus; and lastly, they baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Matthew 28:19. Five times we read that they baptized households. Hence it is of no avail to deny infant baptism. It is misguiding the ignorant, and giving a false gloss to the holy scriptures. They might just as well say that women did not receive the sacrament, as say that the primitive christians did not baptize their children, because it is not said that women did communicate, or that infants were baptized. Origen however says, “It was always the custom of the church to baptize children.” Now though the jews, resident in a warm country, did baptize by dipping, we are nowhere restricted to that form of baptism, and especially, as in the great churches, even in the early times, difference of mode prevailed. Some dipped, some sprinkled, and some poured water on the children. The emperor Constantine was baptized when sick in bed, by having water sprinkled upon him. Baptism is a figure of the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and of our purification from sin; and as we are oftener said to be sprinkled with the blood of Christ than washed, I do not see the absolute force of forms. Every father has a right to choose his own mode for his own child.

7. Many of the Pharisees and Sadducees — Many, but not all. They were the heads of the Church and State, and it was hard for them to come down into the vale of humiliation.

The PHARISEES derived their name from a Hebrew word signifying to separate. It indicated a profession of standing apart from a wicked world. When they arose is not clearly known. Their number at Herod’s death, according to Josephus, was six thousand. They claimed to be the orthodox party, and believed in the strictest letter of the law and all the traditions of the rabbies. They maintained their power by display of external sanctity, and so became hypocritical and ambitious; they exercised great influence over the popular mind; they finally only served to shed an air of sanctity over the wickedness of the day, and thus became the authors of a full security for crime. When John came many of them presented themselves for baptism. A few may have been truly penitent, but the larger number, perhaps expecting that they would be the hierarchy in the new Messianic realm, were insincere. When there came a Saviour from sin instead of a saviour from Rome and a conqueror, their hearts were wholly hostile unto him. They adhered to their sins; they took a stand of opposition to him; they involved themselves in rankling hate, sophistical gainsaying, plots and conspiracies, until they consummated their whole career by false accusation and judicial murder.

The SADDUCEES were worldly unbelievers, who admitted, indeed, the Pentateuch as the temporal though divine constitution of the state, and Moses as a founder; but denied immortality, spirits, angels, or resurrection. Their name is derived by some from their supposed founder, Sadoc, who flourished in the time of Alexander the Great; but others maintain that the word is but a form of the Hebrew word for “the just ones.” Their ideal theory of righteousness was very high; for a maxim, derived from Sadoc himself, as is claimed, runs thus: “Be not as those slaves that serve their master on this condition only, namely, that they may receive a reward.” But a maxim of such a nature could serve as little else than a moral pretension, which could be repeated with a lofty air of virtue, but would leave the heart and life to practical selfishness and sin. Herein the Sadducees resembled the Grecian Stoics, and the sect derived, no doubt, much of its character from Grecian philosophy. They were generally aristocrats in government, philosophical in profession, and ambitious of rule. Many of the Jewish statesmen were of this sect.

There was a third sect, called ESSENES, who lived in monastic seclusion, (very much like the Shakers of the present day,) renouncing meats, wine, marriage, and all secular life, and giving themselves up to visionary piety, and worshipping angels. Many of these, doubtless, became Christians, and brought in those heresies to the Church. Indeed, they were perhaps the original authors of the monkish and conventual system subsequently developed in popery.

Generation of vipers — Not only m the history of the fall, but through the Bible generally the serpent is the emblem of a wicked race. John really holds these classes of men as the head and front of Jewish wickedness. They were responsible, in a great degree, for the depraved character of the times. John evidently knows their radical insincerity; they are, in spite of their coming for baptism, serpents, and of the very essential race of serpents.

Verse 7. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees. — These sects being now for the first time mentioned, a short account of them is necessary. The most satisfactory derivation of the name of PHARISEES is from vrp, to separate, because they assumed to themselves a superior sanctity Josephus’ account of them is, that they valued themselves for their exactness in keeping, and their skill in interpreting, the law, and seemed to excel all others in the knowledge and observance of the customs of their fathers. If they sprung from the Assideans, תמרים, or, the pious, described in the Maccabees as, ekousiaz omenoi tw nomw “voluntarily devoted to the law,” they had a good origin; and it is probable that the genuine and vigorous piety of the Jewish Church after the return from Babylon, was embodied in this sect, at least as far as respected the influential class of society. That they had generally degenerated into formality, superstition, and hypocrisy, though not without many individual exceptions, is evident both from the writings of the evangelists, and from contemporary history. On the doctrines of the resurrection from the dead, and the immateriality of the soul, they were more orthodox than the Sadducees; but they interpreted the prophecies respecting Messiah in a gross and worldly sense; placed religion in ceremonies; turned it into an instrument of gaining popular applause; made a show of their prayers and alms; affected not only to keep the law, but to go beyond the requirements of its ceremonial precepts, in their obedience; — paying tithe of “anise, mint, and cummin,” practising more frequent ablutions than the law required, fasting twice a week, and in some instances submitting to painful austerities and mortifications; but with all this outward show of strictness, they neglected the purification of the heart and the practice of moral virtue. They were proud, arrogating to themselves the peculiar favour of Heaven, contemptuous of others, especially of the body of the people, from whom they exacted an abject reverence; and covetous, for, under pretence of sanctity, they made a prey of the ignorant and unwary. To colour all these evils, they had a delusive system of casuistry, and pleaded in justification traditions of the elders, to which they not only gave equal authority with the law of God, but often interpreted the law by them, contrary to its true meaning, so that, as they were charged by our Lord, they “made the commandments of God of none effect by their traditions.” Most of the Jews at present are rabbinists or Pharisees, that is, they believe in, and observe, the traditions; the remainder are Karaites, who only regard the law in its literal interpretation.

The SADDUCEES were coeval with the Pharisees, and probably, like the present Karaites, originally owed their distinction to their rejecting traditions, and adhering to the text of the Pentateuch. The oriental and Greek philosophy, from the time of Alexander the Great, however, infected the learning among the Jews, and gave rise to multifarious speculations and theories. The Sadducees especially affected philosophy, openly professed the tenet of materialism, denied the resurrection of the body, and the existence of angels and men departed. To the law of Moses they, however, professed the strongest attachment, and were equally bigoted with the Pharisees, subjecting it, however theologically, to a philosophical interpretation. The men of rank and wealth, the court, and the nobles, were chiefly of this sect. Thus, although the Jews at the coming of our Lord were free from the charge of idolatry, which was their ancient easily besetting sin, they had generally fallen, as a people, into a state of awful declension from truth and piety, more deeply so probably in Judea than in the Greek cities, and in Jerusalem most of all. There was another Jewish sect, not mentioned in the gospels, the Essenes. These were abstemious and austere in their manners, given up to mystical speculations, and lived apart from cities, in communities of their own, and chiefly in Egypt, and in the wilderness of Judea. None of these appear to have attended our Lord’s ministry; but afterward many of them became Christians, and are supposed to have infected some of the early Churches with their doctrines of abstaining from meats, the worshipping of angels, &c.; and they sowed the seeds of many sects which, in various ways, adulterated Christianity. Come to his baptism. — They wished to submit to this rite principally, no doubt, because it was administered by a prophet, who brought them tidings of the immediate revelation of Messiah; and they thus professed their faith in John’s mission as the Messiah’s harbinger, and as such hoped to recommend themselves to him. This seems to have been their motive: self-confident as they were, they would scarcely have submitted to a rite which implied some change of religious views; for they were familiar with the practice of baptism, which was administered by them to Gentiles and their families when they embraced the Jewish religion. But of John’s baptism in its spiritual character, as baptism “unto REPENTANCE,” and to FAITH in the coming of Messiah to take away or remit sin, they had no conception; for these self-righteous persons in their own opinion had no sins to confess, and therefore we do not read that they came like the others, “confessing their sins.” To them, therefore, John appears to have refused the distinguishing rite of his dispensation, because of their misconceptions of it, and their want of repentance. Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance, was his address to them. Show that you truly repent, by your humility, broken-heartedness, self-renunciation, and self-abhorrence, by your acknowledgment of sin, and your renunciation of it; and then come and be baptized. Some, indeed, contend that after this warning they were baptized: but this question appears to be set at rest by Luke 7:27-30, where our Lord, having commended the character of John the Baptist, the evangelist adds, “And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John; but the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, not being baptized of him.” They were offended and went away, denying that mission of the Baptist which at first they appeared to acknowledge. Generation of vipers, &c. — The offspring, or children of vipers, in opposition to their boast of being the children of Abraham, — men of subtle and malignant dispositions. The word ecidna is used in a metaphorical sense, closely analogous to this, by classic authors. Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? — Some take this as an expression of surprise. So Macknight: “Ye Pharisees form your righteousness on the works of the law; ye Sadducees deny the doctrine of a resurrection; how is it then that men of your principles come to a baptism of repentance?” It is, however, better understood as implying a negation, — no one hath warned you, no one effectually: you are not penitently apprehensive of the displeasure of God; but either, as Pharisees, trust in yourselves that you already possess the special favour of God, or, as Sadducees, reject the doctrine of future punishment entirely. The wrath to come is not to be understood of the destruction of Judea; for John dealt with his hearers as sinners before God, and liable as such to the penalty of sin in a future life. THIS was the wrath of which he speaks; and it is a tremendous doctrine which he thus teaches in one sentence: this wrath is always wrath to come; that is, it is not only a future penal visitation, but even when this visitation has arrived, it will still be “wrath to come” for ever! “Fools” only “can make a mock at sin” when these are its consequences.

V. 8. Repentance is of two sorts; that which is termed legal, and that which is styled evangelical repentance. The former (which is the same that is spoken of here) is a thorough conviction of sin. The latter is a change of heart (and consequently of life) from all sin to all holiness.

Verse 8. Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for repentance — That is, a change of temper and behaviour, answerable thereto; forsake, as well as confess, your sins, and let the integrity, regularity, holiness, and usefulness of your lives, manifest the sincerity of your repentance. It is a metaphor taken from trees, which discover what quality they are of by the fruits they bear; in allusion to which, pious men are called trees of righteousness, Isaiah 61:3; and their works, fruits of righteousness, Philippians 1:11. Let it be observed, further, that as the original word, metanoia, here rendered repentance, properly signifies a change of mind, from the approbation and love of sin to an aversion and hatred to it, in consequence of a deep conviction of its evil nature and destructive tendency; (see on verse 2;) so, wherever this is, there will, of course, be an entire reformation of life, a ceasing to do evil, in all respects, according to the knowledge and ability of the penitent, and a learning to do well. Hence it is styled repentance from dead works, Hebrews 6:1; and repentance unto salvation not to be repented of, 2 Corinthians 7:10; that is, such as is not reversed by any voluntary returning or relapsing into our former sins. And, seeing God is unchangeably holy, and must for ever hate all sin with a perfect hatred, it is certain, from his very nature, that he cannot be reconciled to or have communion with the sinner, till a change be wrought in his spirit and conduct, and he cease from the commission of known iniquity. For a change there must be in God or man; and, since God’s nature is immutable, and it cannot be in him, it must of necessity be in man. Now it is evident, both from reason and experience, that confession of sins, a present sorrow for them, and displeasure against them, with a warm resolution to forsake them, are by no means always attended with this change, and, therefore, that these alone cannot be fruits meet for repentance. And O, how necessary was this admonition for the men of that age, who placed their repentance, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, in a mere verbal confession of their sins; and is it not equally necessary for too many of our own age?

8. Fruits meet — John evidently sees the want of a proper prospect of reformation in these men correspondent with the external repentance. Meet — Suitable.

V. 9. And say not confidently-The word in the original, vulgarly rendered, Think not, seems here, and in many places, not to diminish, but rather add to the force of the word with which it is joined. We have Abraham to our father-It is almost incredible, how great the presumption of the Jews was on this their relation to Abraham. One of their famous sayings was, "Abraham sits near the gates of hell, and suffers no Israelite to go down into it."

I say unto you-This preface always denotes the importance of what follows.

Of these stones-Probably pointing to those which lay before them.

Verse 9. And think not to say — Or, as the words, mh doxhte legein, rather signify, Presume not to say, or, Say not confidently, within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father — As if he had said, Being called upon to bring forth fruits meet for repentance, begin not to obstruct the efficacy of the admonition with those thoughts which are so common among you, that you are secure from wrath by being the children of Abraham. It is almost incredible how great the presumption of the Jews was, on this their relation to Abraham. “Abraham,” says the Talmud, (a book in high repute among them,) “sits near the gates of hell, and does not permit any wicked Israelite to go down into it.” And Justin informs us, that the Jewish rabbins assured them, “That, being Abraham’s seed, though they continued in disobedience to God, and in infidelity, the kingdom of heaven should still be given them.” And it is to be feared that many professors of Christianity build their hopes of salvation on a foundation equally false, depending on their baptism, their knowledge, their orthodoxy, their forms of godliness, their deeds of charity, or their fancied interest in the merits of Christ, while they live in sin, and are lukewarm and negligent in pursuit of that holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

For I say unto you — This preface always denotes the importance of what follows: God is able of these stones — He probably pointed to those which lay before them: to raise up children to Abraham — You think that because you are the only Church of God upon earth, and if you were destroyed God would then have no seed of Abraham to show mercy to, and keep his covenant with, therefore judgment shall not come upon you: but mistake not; that God who raised Adam from the dust of the earth, and children to Abraham from the dead womb of Sarah, can, if he please, animate and sanctify these very stones, which are before your eyes, and transform them into children of Abraham; into persons who shall inherit Abraham’s faith and piety, and who, by imitating his obedience, shall become his spiritual seed, to whom the promises made to him shall be fulfilled, and in whom the church shall still subsist, though all you should be destroyed. And he would sooner work such a miracle as this, than he would suffer his promise to fail, or admit you to the blessings of his approaching kingdom, merely because you have the abused honour to descend from that peculiar favourite of Heaven. Thus the Baptist took from those presumptuous men the ground of their confidence, by affirming that God could perform his promises to Abraham, though the whole Jewish nation should be rejected by him; the seed, like the stars for multitude, that was principally intended in the promise, being a spiritual progeny.

Ver. 9. Think not to say — we have Abraham to our father. Dr. Lightfoot, to lower the Hebrew theology, gives us a story here out of the Talmud of Jerusalem, that “Abraham sits at the gate, and will not suffer any Israelite to descend into the fire of gehenna.” The ancient jews had long boasted, “the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are we.” The drunken rulers of Jerusalem mocked Isaiah in a high tone of derision: chap. 28. He rejoined, that God had begun to build another temple, one of living stones, and that the hail of invasion should sweep away all their refuges of lies. He adds still stronger words of their utter execration, in Isaiah 65:15.

9. Abraham to our father — Abraham is but poorly the father of a brood of serpents. John warns them that bodily descent will not save them; they will be tried under the severe law of an individual responsibility. Of these stones — Pointing, perhaps, to the stones of the Jordan. In thus sinking the high claims of Judaism, John, no doubt, indicates the coming rejection of the Jewish race.

Verse 9. And think not to say within yourselves, &c. — A common mode of expression, says Lightfoot, in the Talmud. Mh doxhte legein is equivalent to “be not of opinion;” ne lubeat vobis, “be not disposed to say;” let not this delusive opinion have a place in your thoughts. We have Abraham to our father, a relation which was the theme of their constant boastings, and from which they expected salvation, merely by virtue of their fleshly descent, though both the faith and the works of Abraham were wanting among them. There is no imputation of the holiness of pious ancestors to their children, and personal regeneration can alone qualify men for the kingdom of God. For God is able of these stones, &c. Perhaps John pointed to the rocks and stones in the bed of the Jordan. The meaning is, not that children to Abraham could be raised up from stones in the sense of natural descent and relationship, which was a thing impossible; but that as children to Abraham were at first raised up by a miracle in the birth of Isaac, so though God should destroy the then race of Jews, no purpose of his would fall to the ground; because he was able to raise up a people from the stones, to stand in the place of the natural descendants of Abraham, were that necessary to accomplish the purposes of his providence and grace. That there was also a tacit reference to the calling of the Gentiles is very probable. — They were despised by the Jews as though they had been the stones under their feet; and were as little likely to become the true Church of God in the world as stones were to become living men. Yet God by his almighty grace not only gave them spiritual life, and adopted them as Abraham’s believing seed; but formed them into his Church, to the exclusion of the unbelieving Jews, and made them his peculiar people. So Irenæus: “Jesus raised up children to Abraham from the stones, when he turned us from the religion of stones, (a lapidum religione; meaning the worship of gods of stone, &c.,) and from our own insensible and barren state of mind, and brought us to a faith like that of Abraham’s.” Jerome takes a similar view of the import of the passage.

V. 10. But the axe also already lieth-That is, there is no room for such idle pretences. Speedy execution is determined against all that do not repent. The comparison seems to be taken from a woodman that has laid down his axe to put off his coat, and then immediately goes to work to cut down the tree. This refers to the wrath to come in Matthew 3:7. Is hewn down-Instantly, without farther delay.

Verse 10. And now also the axe is laid] Or, Even now the axe lieth. As if he had said, There is not a moment to spare-God is about to cut off every impenitent soul-you must therefore either turn to God immediately, or be utterly and finally ruined. It was customary with the prophets to represent the kingdoms, nations, and individuals, whose ruin they predicted, under the notion of forests and trees, doomed to be cut down. See Jeremiah 46:22, 23; Ezekiel 31:3, 11, 12. The Baptist follows the same metaphor: the Jewish nation is the tree, and the Romans the axe, which, by the just judgment of God, was speedily to cut it down. It has been well observed, that there is an allusion here to a woodman, who, having marked a tree for excision, lays his axe at its root, and strips off his outer garment, that he may wield his blows more powerfully, and that his work may be quickly performed. For about sixty years before the coming of Christ, this axe had been lying at the root of the Jewish tree, Judea having been made a province to the Roman empire, from the time that Pompey took the city of Jerusalem, during the contentions of the two brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, which was about sixty-three years before the coming of Christ. See Joseph. Antiq. l. xiv. c. 1-5. But as the country might be still considered as in the hands of the Jews, though subject to the Romans, and God had waited on them now nearly ninety years from the above time, expecting them to bring forth fruit, and none was yet produced; he kept the Romans as an axe, lying at the root of this tree, who were ready to cut it down the moment God gave them the commission.

Verse 10. And now, also, the axe, &c. — To enforce his exhortation, he informs them that they had no time to delay their repentance, because the patience of God was very near exhausted, and come to an end with respect to them. His judgments were at hand and ready to be inflicted, so that, if they continued unfruitful, notwithstanding the extraordinary means that were now to be tried with them, destruction would speedily overtake them; as if he had said, God now once more offers you his grace in and through his Son, which, if you refuse, he will no longer bear with you. You think of national deliverances, but I am sent to warn you of national judgments; judgments, which even now hang over your heads, and are ready to fall upon you if you still continue barren, or do not bring forth good fruit: for I assure you, the hand of God is lifted up to strike the fatal blow. There is an allusion in the words to a woodman, who, having marked a tree for excision, lays his axe at the root of it, till he puts off his upper garment, and then immediately goes to work to cut it down. Therefore, every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit — Every one that, while he professes to be one of God’s people, contradicts that profession by a wicked life, or by the neglect of vital and practical religion, is cut down, &c. — Instantly, without further delay; and cast into the fire — Of hell: a prediction this, 1st, of that dreadful destruction which, within the short period of forty-four years, came, by the Romans, upon the whole Jewish nation; as if he had said, The Babylonians formerly lopped off your branches, but now the tree shall be cut down; your commonwealth shall be destroyed, and your temple, city, and nation totally ruined: and, 2dly, it is a prediction of that particular destruction which shall soon overtake all that reject the counsel of God against themselves, or, as the apostle expresses it, that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Ver. 10. Now also the axe is laid to the root of the trees. These words portend that the destruction of hypocrites, and of all the impenitent, was near at hand. As the woodman in a morning throws down his axe at the root of a tree, while he takes off his coat to give the final blows to the tall cedar or the ancient oak, so the Roman axe was already commissioned to strike at the jewish nation, and give them a total fall. Their rejection of the kingdom of heaven which was now approaching, would be the prelude to this dreadful catastrophe.

10. Axe is laid unto the root of the trees — Is about being laid by the axeman’s stroke. The verbs of this verse are in the present, to express a closely approaching future. Root — To express utter destruction. It was not to be a simply organic destruction, but individual also. Each individual fruitless tree was to be hewn down by a stroke of death and cast into the subsequent fire of perdition. No Abrahamic descent could save them.

Verse 10. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees. — Fruitless and fruitful trees have in all ages been used as metaphors to express good and bad men; and as barren trees, after patient forbearance, are finally cut down and burned, so the certainty and terribleness of the punishment of the wicked are forcibly indicated by the metaphor. The same image is employed by Isaiah with great effect to express the judgments which should fall upon all the ranks of a guilty nation, by the Chaldean invasion: “Behold, the Lord of hosts shall lop the bough with terror: and the high ones of stature shall be hewn down, and the haughty shall be humbled. And he shall cut down the thickets of the forest with iron, and Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one,” Isaiah 10:33, 34. The Baptist does not, however, refer to the Jewish state, but to the dangerous condition of sinful individuals. (See note on verse 8.) The axe being laid “to the root,” that is, at or near to, the root, intimates both the long suffering of God which gave them space for repentance; and the certainty that, if the tree remained unfruitful, it would be “hewn down and cast into the fire.” — Mercy grants delay, but justice lays down the axe in preparation for the work of excision. The danger, too, was not distant, but imminent; hdh de kai, and even now the axe is laid at the root, &c.

V. 11. He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire-He shall fill you with the Holy Ghost, inflaming your hearts with that fire of love, which many waters cannot quench. And this was done, even with a visible appearance as of fire, on the day of pentecost.

Verse 11. But he that cometh after me] Or, I coming after me, who is now on his way, and will shortly make his appearance. Jesus Christ began his ministry when he was thirty years of age, Luke 3:23, which was the age appointed by the law, Numbers 4:3. John the Baptist was born about six months before Christ; and, as he began his public ministry when thirty years of age, then this coming after refers to six months after the commencement of John’s public preaching, at which time Christ entered upon his.

Whose shoes I am not worthy to bear] This saying is expressive of the most profound humility and reverence. To put on, take off, and carry the shoes of their masters, was, not only among the Jews, but also among the Greeks and Romans, the work of the vilest slaves. This is amply proved by Kypke, from Arrian, Plutarch, and the Babylonian Talmud.

With the Holy Ghost, and with fire] That the influences of the Spirit of God are here designed, needs but little proof. Christ’s religion was to be a spiritual religion, and was to have its seat in the heart. Outward precepts, however well they might describe, could not produce inward spirituality. This was the province of the Spirit of God, and of it alone; therefore he is represented here under the similitude of fire, because he was to illuminate and invigorate the soul, penetrate every part, and assimilate the whole to the image of the God of glory. See on John 3:5.

With fire] kai puri. This is wanting in E. S. (two MSS. one of the ninth, the other of the tenth century) eight others, and many Evangelistaria, and in some versions and printed editions; but it is found in the parallel place, Luke 3:16, and in the most authentic MSS. and versions. It was probably the different interpretations given of it by the fathers that caused some transcribers to leave it out of their copies.

The baptism of fire has been differently understood among the primitive fathers. Some say, it means the tribulations, crosses, and afflictions, which believers in Christ are called to pass through. Hence the author of the Opus Imperfectum, on Matthew, says, that there are three sorts of baptism, 1. that of water; 2. that of the Holy Ghost; and, 3. that of tribulations and afflictions, represented under the notion of fire. He observes farther, that our blessed Lord went through these three baptisms: 1. That of water, he received from the hands of John. 2. That of the Holy Spirit he received from the Father. And, 3. That of fire, he had in his contest with Satan in the desert. St. Chrysostom says; it means the superabundant graces of the Spirit. Basil and Theophilus explain it of the fire of hell. Cyril, Jerome, and others, understand by it the descent of the Holy Spirit, on the day of pentecost.

Hilary says, it means a fire that the righteous must pass through in the day of judgment, to purify them from such defilements as necessarily cleaved to them here, and with which they could not be admitted into glory. Ambrose says, this baptism shall be administered at the gate of paradise, by John Baptist; and he thinks that this is what is meant by the flaming sword, Genesis 3:24.

Origen and Lactantius conceive it to be a river of fire, at the gate of heaven, something similar to the Phlegethon of the heathens; but they observe, that when the righteous come to pass over, the liquid flames shall divide, and give them a free passage: that Christ shall stand on the brink of it, and receive through the flames all those, and none but those, who have received in this world the baptism of water in his name: and that this baptism is for those who, having received the faith of Christ, have not, in every respect, lived conformably to it; for, though they laid the good foundation, yet they built hay, straw, and stubble upon it, and this work of theirs must be tried, and destroyed by this fire. This, they think, is St. Paul’s meaning, 1 Corinthians 3:13-15. If any man build on this foundation (viz. Jesus Christ) gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man’s work shall be made manifest: and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is.-If any man’s work be burnt, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as BY FIRE. From this fire, understood in this way, the fathers of the following ages, and the schoolmen, formed the famous and lucrative doctrine of PURGATORY. Some in the primitive Church thought that fire should be, in some way or other, joined to the water in baptism; and it is supposed that they administered it by causing the person to pass between two fires, or to leap through the flame; or by having a torch, or lighted candle, present. Thus have those called Doctors of the Church trifled. The exposition which I have given, I believe to be the only genuine one.

Verse 11. I indeed baptize you with water — I call you to repentance: and admit the penitent to the baptism of water, as a sign and token of their being washed from their past sins, and of their engaging to walk henceforward in newness of life. He answers the question put to him, John 1:19, 25, by the priests and Levites sent from Jerusalem. But he that cometh after me — That succeeds me in preaching and baptizing, is mightier than I — Is endued with unspeakably greater authority and power; Whose shoes I am not worthy to bear — That is, for whom I am unworthy to perform the humblest office of menial service: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire — He shall not only administer the outward element, or sign, to his disciples, but the thing signified thereby, viz., the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit, which, in their operations and effects, are like fire, enlightening, quickening, and purifying men’s souls, and kindling therein pious and devout affections; inflaming their hearts with love to God and all mankind, and with a degree of zeal for his glory and the salvation of sinners which all the waters of difficulty and danger, of persecution and tribulation, which they may be called to pass through, shall not be able to quench. And this baptism he will communicate in so abundant a measure, that you shall seem to be overflowed therewith. Now this promise was fulfilled, even with a visible appearance, as of fire, on the day of pentecost; and it is fulfilled without that appearance to this day, with respect to all that believe in Christ with a faith that worketh by love.

11. He that cometh after me is mightier — This entire speech of John’s is mainly founded on the closing two chapters of the Old Testament, to which we have already referred, where is predicted the day of Christ’s coming, preceded by his harbinger, and attended by all the terrors of searching scrutiny, divine blessing, and fiery judgment. In this expression John alludes to Malachi 3:1: Behold, I will send my messenger and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Jehovah whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple. (We may here remark that LORD, in capitals, in the Old Testament, means Jehovah, the incommunicable name of God.) The one to come after John was, indeed, mightier than he, being no other than Jehovah incarnate. Shoes — Whenever a Jew entered a respectable house he left his sandals at the door. Orientals of rank are attended by a servant, who takes them in charge; and this is a very menial duty. But so humble is John the Baptist in comparison with his Lord, that the service which is too disgraceful to be performed for any man by anybody but the lowest servants, is too honorable for him to perform. This menial duty was sometimes performed in reverence by disciples for the rabbi. Baptize you with the Holy Ghost — God’s holy Spirit had been at various times bestowed in sanctifying, regenerating, and miracle-working power under the old dispensation. Since the close of the Old Testament books, miracles had ceased; but Christ came preceded, attended, and succeeded by a stupendous display of divine powers. The baptism of the Holy Spirit in its sanctifying, quickening, and even wonder-working power, was one of these displays. It was even made visible in the memorable season of Pentecost. Acts 2.

This text is the fundamental passage for showing, from the very nature of the rite, what is the true mode of performing baptism. This I have shown at fuller length than is here possible, in my two sermons on The Double Baptism, in the Methodist Episcopal Pulpit. We may here remark:

1. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was not by immersion but affusion. At the Pentecost, where the Spirit baptism was made visible, the tongues of fire descended and sat upon them. When our Lord was baptized the Holy Spirit descended and lighted upon him. On Cornelius and his company it was poured out. So Titus 3:5,

6. The washing of regeneration is shed on us. Baptism by the Holy Ghost is always by affusion.

2. If so, then the word baptizo, as a religious rite, does not necessarily or properly signify immersion. It is the descent of the element upon the person, not of the person into the element. For if baptism by the element spirit is affusion, then baptism by the element water is affusion. The meaning of the word is the same whatever be the element.

3. We have here a principle of interpretation. The symbol ought always to conform to and picture its original. Now, spirit baptism is the original of which water baptism is the symbol. If spirit baptism be by affusion, certainly water baptism must also be affusion. Spiritual affusion cannot be symbolized by immersion in water. Hence immersion fundamentally fails to be a picture of the original. It is symbol without a reality, a shadow without a substance.

4. The baptism by fire is a case equally clear. Its process was made visible at the Pentecost, when the fiery tongues sat upon the apostles. Baptismal fire is by affusion; the fire of hell is by immersion. So, verse 10, the fruitless tree is cast into the fire. So, Revelation 20:15, cast into the lake of fire. And with fire — The baptism of spirit and of fire are no doubt different parts or phases of the same process. To understand the difference between the two phases we must reduce the idea of spirit back to its simple idea of a breathing. “He breathed upon them and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” John 20:22. Hereby was effected the gentle impartation of holy tempers, consecrating unction, and comforting grace. The baptism of fire, manifested in the fiery tongues at Pentecost, is the severer purgation, burning sin away by sharper agonies, imparting a severer spiritual purity and energy, and qualifying the preacher for the performance of sterner rebuke toward a wicked world.

Verse 11. I indeed baptize you with water. — That is, with water only; for the Spirit was to be administered by Christ alone. “Unto repentance, eiv metanoian,” UPON repentance, as Grotius well suggests; that being the condition of his baptism. Whose shoes I am not worthy to bear. The Jewish shoes were a kind of sandal, fastened to the foot with thongs, easily untied and slipped off, and were laid aside for washing the feet on entering a house, or before meals. The word here used is indeed not sandalion, but upodhma; but the Septuagint renders געל sometimes by one and sometimes by the other. The unloosing of the sandals, and carrying them away till wanted, was a menial office of the lowest kind, both among Greeks and Jews. Hence among the latter the disciples of the rabbins were obliged to perform every kind of office for them, the unloosing and carrying of the sandals excepted. Thus Maimonides: “All services which a servant does for his master, a disciple does for his teacher, except unloosing his shoes.” No words could therefore more forcibly express the sense that John had of the superiority of Christ. In his view, he was the supreme Lord, and himself a servant so low in comparison of this “mightier” Being, that he was not even worthy to unloose and bear his sandals. The whole manner in which the Baptist speaks of Christ in comparison with himself is utterly irreconcilable with his regarding him merely as an exalted human being. “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire,” en Pneumati agiw kai puri. Unless this be rendered, “He shall baptize you IN the Holy Ghost and fire,” it is a folly for the advocates of immersion to translate en udati, IN water.” They have indeed ventured on both, in support of a favourite opinion; but in what sense — whatever allowance may be made for figurative language — men can be said to be plunged or immersed “in the Holy Ghost and fire,” it is impossible to conceive. En tw Iordanh may indeed be translated “in Jordan,” for the reason before given; but the preposition may be taken in the sense of WITH, understanding an ellipsis, “with the water of the Jordan.” But there the place of baptism only is referred to, here the mode and kind of baptism; and as the manner in which the baptism of the Holy Ghost was actually administered by Christ is recorded, we have the sense of the preposition fixed by the fact. Thus when this baptism took place we read, “And there appeared unto them cloven tongues as of fire, and it SAT UPON each of them; and they were all filled with the HOLY GHOST.” Thus the baptism of “the Holy Ghost and fire,” was a descent UPON, and not an immersion INTO; and John must be understood to use the word baptism when he refers to water, in the sense of pouring or effusion. It is a strange opinion entertained by some commentators, that the fiery baptism here spoken of signifies the calamities which afterward befell the impenitent Jews. The fancies of some of the fathers on this text were also numerous, but not worth recording. Those of them who referred it to the descent of the Holy Spirit at the day of pentecost in his plenitude of gifts and graces, interpret correctly. The Holy Ghost, and fire, mean the same thing, the latter clause being exegetical; (Spiritus, qui est ignis, Elsner;) and the words added were designed to convey the lofty notion of an illuminating, purifying, and most energetic effusion of the Holy Spirit. And it is to be observed that whenever our Lord speaks of the gift of the Holy Spirit, in that fulness of influence which was to be administered to all that believed on him, he speaks of it as a future gift, “which they that believed on him should receive;” and the direction to the disciples was, that they should “tarry at Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high.” The declaration in the text was. first fulfilled at the day of pentecost; but not only then: it is fulfilled whenever the Holy Spirit is vouchsafed to believers; for when St. Peter gives an account of the result of his mission to Cornelius, he says, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning: then remembered I the word of the Lord; how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost,” Acts 11:15, 16. With this inspired comment before them, how remarkable is it that the professed interpreters of Scripture should have had any difference of opinion as to the meaning of the words of the Baptist! The external emblem of fire accompanied the descent of the Holy Spirit at the day of pentecost, probably to mark more sensibly the accomplishment of this predictive promise; but at other times, even when followed by miraculous gifts, this circumstance was wanting, as in the instance of the house of Cornelius above referred to. We are thus taught that when the gift of the Spirit is invisible and secret, it is yet the mighty and transforming BAPTISM OF FIRE; that is, his influences are fitly represented by that powerful and purging element. This is one of the particulars in which the superiority of Christ’s baptism consisted. John’s baptism was founded upon a confession of sin; and that of Christ was the application of a Divine energy to purge it away; as fire removes those stains and pollutions which water cannot. The words, “and fire,” are wanting in some MSS.; but that they are genuine, is sufficiently proved from their being in the parallel passages in St. Luke, and in the older MSS. and versions, The Socinian writers urge the absence of the article before Pneumati agiw against the words being understood of the Holy Spirit; and Bishop Middleton’s distinction between the Holy Spirit taken personally, and his influence, in order to account for this absence of the article, is worth nothing. The reasons for the omissions and insertions of the Greek article in many instances, after all the investigation which the subject has of late years received, are far from being satisfactorily made out. The foundation which different theories assume is often too frail to bear the weight of an argument: and of this, the passage before us is a pregnant proof. We may urge against Wakefield’s translations, “with a holy spirit of fire,” and “with a holy wind, and with a fire,” their unintelligible absurdity; for no idea, surely, can be attached to baptism with a holy spirit of fire, or to baptism with wind, much less to a holy wind; and especially when this same critic will not allow that even “a personified operation of Deity” is to be understood without the article. To this may be added the remark of Campbell, whose views of the passage are otherwise obscure and defective, that no example can be produced of the adjective, holy, being joined to pneuma, where the meaning of pneuma is wind. But there is a more decisive answer in Acts 11:15, 16; where it is plain that the absence or presence of the article before pneuma makes not the least difference in the sense of the term; and that it is both inserted and omitted in the same breath. En de tw arxasqai me lalein, epepese TO Pneuma TO agion ep’ autouv, wsper kai ef hmav en arch.

Emnhsqhn de tou pnmatov Kuriou wv elegen. Iwanuhv men

ebaptisen udati, umeiv de baptisqhsesqe en Pneumati agiw. “And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as at the beginning: then remembered,” &c. Here it is clear that the absence of the article in the words of John, which he quotes, occasioned St. Peter no difficulty; but that he applied pneuma in its anarthrous form to the personal operations of the Divine Spirit of God himself.

V. 12. Whose fan-That is, the word of the Gospel.

His floor-That is, his Church, which is now covered with a mixture of wheat and chaff.

He will gather the wheat into the garner-Will lay up those who are truly good in heaven.

Verse 12. Whose fan is in his hand] The Romans are here termed God’s fan, as, in Matthew 3:10, they were called his axe, and, in Matthew 22:7, they are termed his troops or armies. The winnowing fan of the Hindoos is square, made of split bamboo; and the corn is winnowed by waving the fan backwards with both hands-“Whose fan is in his hand.”

His floor] Does not this mean the land of Judea, which had been long, as it were, the threshing-floor of the Lord? God says, he will now, by the winnowing fan (viz. the Romans) throughly cleanse this floor-the wheat, those who believe in the Lord Jesus, he will gather into his garner, either take to heaven from the evil to come, or put in a place of safety, as he did the Christians, by sending them to Pella, in Coelosyria, previously to the destruction of Jerusalem. But he will burn up the chaff-the disobedient and rebellions Jews, who would not come unto Christ, that they might have life.

Unquenchable fire.] That cannot be extinguished by man.

Verse 12. Whose fan is in his hand — That is, the doctrine of the gospel, which is of such a nature as effectually discovers what is the real disposition of the hearts of men, and perfectly distinguishes between the hypocritical and the sincere. Perhaps, also, the Baptist might refer to the persecutions and tribulations which should attend the preaching of the gospel. Dr. Campbell renders the original expression, to ptuon, winnowing shovel, mentioned Isaiah 30:24, “an implement of husbandry, very ancient, simple, and properly manual: whereas the fan, (or van, as it is sometimes called,) is more complex, and, being contrived for raising an artificial wind, by the help of sails, can hardly be considered as proper for being carried about in the hand.” “In the eastern countries,” says Dr. Shaw, “after the grain is trodden out, they winnow it by throwing it up against the wind with a shovel.” “To understand the Baptist’s meaning aright, we should observe, that in this verse he describes the authority of Christ’s ministry, as in verse 16 he had described its efficacy. As if he had said, The Messiah is infinitely mightier than I, not only as he will bestow on you the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, but as he has power to reward those who obey him with eternal life, and to punish such with everlasting destruction, as reject him.” — Macknight. He will thoroughly purge his floor — His Church, at present covered with a mixture of wheat and chaff. As if he had said, Though, for the present, the good and bad, the fruitful and unfruitful, are joined together in the visible Church, yet in due time he will sever them, Malachi 3:2, 3; and rid his Church of all hypocrites and ungodly persons. And gather his wheat — The, truly pious, into his garner — Will lay them up in heaven as his peculiar treasure. But the chaff — Those who have only a show of religion, without the power, and produce not the fruits of righteousness, he will burn with unquenchable fire — He will treat them as men do the refuse of the floor. He will destroy them as worthless and unprofitable trash. There is, in these words, an evident allusion to the custom of burning the chaff after winnowing, that it might not, by the wind’s changing, be blown back again, and so be mingled with the wheat. And though this may in part refer to the calamities to come upon the Jewish nation for rejecting Christ, yet, it seems chiefly to intend the final destruction of all sinners in hell, which alone is properly opposed to the gathering the wheat into the garner. See Matthew 13:40-42. And certainly this burning of the chaff with unquenchable fire, is absolutely inconsistent with all views of the restoration of the wicked, nor can it, by any easy or just interpretation, be reconciled with their annihilation, which, it is certain, no punishment of mind or body can, of itself, effect.

12. Whose fan — John here proceeds to describe the terribly discriminating and adjudging process which the coming king Messiah was about to perform. Similar images are contained in Malachi 3:1-6, upon which and upon Malachi iv, we have repeatedly said John’s speech was founded as a prediction of his day. Fan — Or winnowing shovel. Wheat was winnowed from the chaff by dropping it from an uplifted shovel, so that the chaff might be taken off by the wind. Purge — Cleanse from the chaff. Floor — The area of flattened and hardened ground in the field where the winnowing was done. Garner — Granary or grain depository. The garners or granaries of the East are often excavations in the earth in which the grain is buried; frequently for the sake of concealment, either from an enemy or from an oppressive government. Sometimes, the owner being slain or driven away, the subterranean treasure is found accidentally by the plow, or other means. Unquenchable fire — A reference is here made to the practice of burning the chaff under process of winnowing. Lest the flying particles of chaff should be driven back into the wheat, a fire is made to burn, in whose blaze the chaff is forthwith consumed. The wheat is the righteous, the chaff is the wicked, and Christ is the winnower; the granary is heaven, the unquenchable fire is hell.

This epithet unquenchable is decisive against Restorationism and against Destructionism.

Restorationism teaches that the wicked will be delivered from hell; but this supposes the word unquenchable to be an empty terror devoid of meaning. For to what amounts it that the fire is unquenchable if the sinner may be snatched from it at any moment? what cares he for the phantasm of a hell forever empty though forever burning? Moreover, what sense in supposing a hell forever preserved flaming, yet forever void. But, in fact, hell is the penal condition of the condemned sinner, and the fire the penal essence itself; hell has no existence save as a penalty for guilt. Terminate the penalty and the fire has gone out.

Destructionism is the doctrine that the sinner ceases, by the penalty, to exist. So that God still keeps an empty hell eternally burning! In other words, this term unquenchable is unmeaning, and so essentially false.

V. 13. Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21

Verse 13. Then cometh Jesus — Who was now about thirty years of age, from Galilee — Where he had long lived, in a retired manner, unto John, to be baptized of him — Not in testimony of his repentance, or for the remission of sins, for, being without sin, he neither needed repentance nor remission; but that he might honour John’s ministry, and acknowledge his commission to baptize, and might confirm the institution of baptism by water. He thus, also, offered himself to receive that testimony which he knew his heavenly Father would give him, and conformed himself to what he appointed for his followers; for which last reason he drank likewise of the sacramental cup. Thus the apostolical constitutions inform us that Christ was baptized, not that he needed any purgation, but to testify the truth of John’s baptism, and to be an example to us. We may consider this as a plain argument that baptism may be rightly administered to, and received by those that are incapable of many of the chief ends of it, provided they be capable of some other end for which it also was designed. For Christ, being without sin, could neither repent nor promise amendment of life; being the wisdom of the Father, he could be taught nothing; being the Christ, he could not profess he would believe on him that should come after him, that is, on himself. He, therefore, was baptized, 1st, to testify that he owned the Baptist as one commissioned by God to perform this office; 2d, that by this rite he might profess his willingness to fulfil all righteousness; and, 3d, that by this he might be initiated into his prophetical office, and consecrated to the service of God. Therefore, though infants can neither be taught, nor believe, nor give the answer of a good conscience, at baptism, yet they may be baptized; 1st, that by this ceremony they may be obliged to observe the laws of that Jesus, into whose name they are baptized, even as, under the Mosaic dispensation, the infant, by virtue of circumcision, became a debtor to observe the whole law of Moses, Acts 15:5; Galatians 5:3; 2dly, that by this rite they may enter into covenant with God, of which they are declared capable by Moses, Deuteronomy 29:11.

§ 16. — BAPTISM OF JESUS, 13-17.

13. Then cometh Jesus — We have already remarked (ver. 1) on the unacquaintance of John with Jesus, according to John 1:31-33. Though the visible descent of the dove-form Spirit was to be a complete token to John alone, that does not prove that the descent was visible to John alone, or that the scene itself of the baptism was (as some commentators think) secret. A similar testimony to his Divine Sonship (John 12:28, 29) was certainly not secret.

Verse 13. Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John. — Tote, then, does not always so accurately mark the time, as to lead to the conclusion, that our Lord in this instance came to John at that particular juncture when he was addressing the multitudes in the discourse contained in the preceding verses, The notion of those, therefore, who think that the august scene of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him was a public one has no solid foundation. The contrary, indeed, appears to be indicated by this circumstance, that the descent of the Spirit was promised to be a sign to John the Baptist himself, John 1:33, to point out that personage whose precursor he was commissioned to be. It is not probable that this solemn token was given in the midst of a multitude; and in the presence of the scoffing Pharisees and Sadducees. The whole had too sacred and too mystic a character for indiscriminate gaze; and as no reference occurs to this event in the gospels, as a public one, we may conclude that none but the Baptist and Christ were present. The adverb of time with which the account is introduced means no more than at the period when John was baptizing on the Jordan; near to which river he appears for some time to have fixed his abode; but he undoubtedly had some seasons of relaxation and of privacy.

Verse 14. John forbad him] Earnestly and pressingly opposed him: this is the proper import of the words diekwleuen auton. I have observed that dia, in composition, most frequently, if not always, strengthens the signification in classic authors. -Wakefield.

Verse 14. But John forbade him — Out of modesty he would have declined the service, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee — To receive a larger measure of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit from thee, and comest thou to me — on such an occasion as this? It has been questioned, how John knew him to be the Christ, before the Spirit descended on him? But this question will be easily resolved, if it be considered that John was a prophet filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb. No doubt he knew by a secret intimation from that Spirit, that he, who then came to him, was the person on whom the Holy Ghost should descend, and on whom he should abide in so large a measure, or, rather, without measure, that he might impart him to others, such matters being frequently imparted to prophets by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Thus Simeon, having been told that he should not die until he had seen the Lord’s Christ, had an intimation given him in the temple that the child Jesus was that Christ, Luke 2:26-32; as had, also, Anna the prophetess. And Samuel, being told by God that on the morrow a man should come to him to be captain over his people Israel, 1 Samuel 9:15, when Saul appeared, he had another intimation given him respecting the person, the Lord saying, verse 17, Behold the man of whom I spake to thee. Just so the Baptist, being to testify, when he baptized with water, that another should baptize them with the Holy Ghost, God tells him that of this he should see an evidence by the visible descent of the Holy Ghost upon Him who, from his fulness, was to impart this Spirit to all true believers; and when our Saviour came to be baptized, God tells him again, this was that very person.

14. John forbade him — This clearly implies that though John was unacquainted with his person, yet the spirit of discerning within recognized the divine in Christ. So confident is John of this, that though he knows him not, he addresses Jesus as his own superior. He only needs to behold the sign that God has appointed, and then he will proclaim him to the world openly. Before that token is given John does not dare to preach him to men. In this way it will be seen that there is no contradiction, as some have supposed, with John 1:31.

I have need to be baptized of thee — John has objections. But what objections! They are deep, gentle humility itself. The rough voice of the rebuker melts down to tenderness when he sees the great, gentle One coming. I am a sinner, thou art the sinless One; I am the sent messenger, thou art the coming Jehovah-Messiah. And comest thou to me for baptism? O baptize my body and soul with thy blessed spirit.

Verse 14. But John forbade him, &c. — John declares that “he knew him not” till his baptism; the reason being, that, though the families were related, yet John had lived long in solitude, at a great distance from the residence of Christ; Divine Providence having ordered this circumstance that it might be manifest that there was no concert between them. Now, for the first time since the days of their infancy, John became acquainted with Christ; and his recognition of him was no doubt produced by supernatural impulse; and knowing then in whose presence he was, said, in acknowledgment of his dignity, “I have need to be baptized of thee.” Then, in the baptism which took place immediately after, he received the confirmatory sign which demonstrated him to be the Messiah.

V. 15. It becometh us to fulfil all righteousness-It becometh every messenger of God to observe all his righteous ordinances. But the particular meaning of our Lord seems to be, that it becometh us to do (me to receive baptism, and you to administer it) in order to fulfil, that is, that I may fully perform every part of the righteous law of God, and the commission he hath given me.

Verse 15. To fulfil all righteousness.] That is, Every righteous ordinance: so I think the words pasan dikaiosunhn should be translated; and so our common version renders a similar word, Luke 1:6. The following passage, quoted from Justin Martyr, will doubtless appear a strong vindication of this translation. “Christ was circumcised, and observed all the other ordinances of the law of Moses, not with a view to his own justification; but to fulfil the dispensation committed to him by the Lord, the God and Creator of all things.”- Wakefield.

How remarkable are the following words of Creeshna (an Incarnation of the Supreme God, according to the Hindoo theology) related in the Bhagvat Geeta, p. 47. Addressing his disciple Arjoon, he says, “I myself, Arjoon, have not, in the three regions of the universe, any thing which is necessary for me to perform; nor any thing to obtain, which is not obtained; and yet I live in the exercise of the moral duties. If I were not vigilantly to attend to those duties, all men would presently follow my example. If I were not to perform the moral actions, this world would fail in their duties: I should be the cause of spurious births, and should drive the people from the right way. As the ignorant perform the duties of life from a hope of reward, so the wise man, out of respect to the opinions and prejudices of mankind, should perform the same without motives of interest. The wise man, by industriously performing all the duties of life, should induce the vulgar to attend to them.”

The Septuagint use this word often for the Hebrew tpvm mishpat, judgment, appointment. And in Ezekiel 18:19, 21, the person who dikaiosunhn kai eleov pepoihke-hath done righteousness and mercy, is he who sacredly attended to the performance of all the religious ordinances mentioned in that chapter, and performed them in the genuine spirit of mercy. dikaiwmata is used 1Mac 1:13, 49; 2:21, and in Hebrews 10:1, 10, to denote religious ceremonies. Michaelis supposes that qj lk kol chok, all religious statutes or ordinances, were the words used in the Hebrew original of this Gospel.

But was this an ordinance? Undoubtedly: it was the initiatory ordinance of the Baptist’s dispensation. Now, as Christ had submitted to circumcision, which was the initiatory ordinance of the Mosaic dispensation, it was necessary that he should submit to this, which was instituted by no less an authority, and was the introduction to his own dispensation of eternal mercy and truth. But it was necessary on another account: Our Lord represented the high priest, and was to be the high priest over the house of God:- now, as the high priest was initiated into his office by washing and anointing, so must Christ: and hence he was baptized, washed, and anointed by the Holy Ghost. Thus he fulfilled the righteous ordinance of his initiation into the office of high priest, and thus was prepared to make an atonement for the sins of mankind.

Then he suffered him.] In the Opus Imperfectum, quoted by Griesbach, there is the following addition, which, at least, may serve to show the opinion of its author: Et Johannes quidem baptizauit ilium in aqua, ille autem Johannem cum Spiritu. “Then John baptized him with water, and he baptized John with the Spirit.”

Verse 15. Suffer it to be so now — In this my state of humiliation: For thus — By this appearance in the form of a sinner, and stooping to thee, my inferior; it becomes us — Me, and my disciples according to my example, to fulfil all righteousness — To do whatsoever is just, fit, and requisite in our circumstances. Or, it becometh every messenger of God, and even every follower of mine, to observe every divine appointment, and to honour every divine ordinance. I therefore offer myself to be baptized, that I may show my readiness to obey all God’s righteous precepts, and to justify God and approve his counsel, Luke 7:29, 30, and celebrate his wisdom in sending thee to prepare his and my way, by calling men to repentance, and in that way fitting them for the blessings of my kingdom. “Our Lord’s baptism tended,” says Dr. Macknight, “to promote the ends both of his own mission and of his forerunner’s, as it established the authority of both. It established John’s mission, great honour being done him by the Messiah’s receiving his baptism. It established our Lord’s mission also; for after he was baptized, the testimonies of the Spirit and voice from heaven were given him in the presence of the multitude assembled at Jordan. That these testimonies should have been given on this occasion, rather than on any other, was fit; because it was an august manner of opening our Lord’s ministry, was the most public occasion that could be found, and pointed him out as Messiah to the Baptist, who was thereby qualified for the principal duty of his mission, John 1:31.” By this we are taught a holy exactness in the observance even of those institutions which owe their obligations merely to a divine appointment. Surely thus it becometh all his followers to fulfil all righteousness. Jesus had no sin to wash away, and yet he was baptized. And God owned his ordinance so as to make it the season of pouring forth the Holy Spirit upon him. And where can we expect this sacred effusion, but in an humble attendance on divine appointments? Then he suffered him — He that sins through ignorance, will correct his error upon better information.

15. Suffer it — Gently the Baptist declines, gently the Saviour insists. He could command, he only requests. It becometh — Such is the divine propriety. Us — That is, it becometh not one alone, but both of us. It is becoming my mission to submit to humilities; it becomes your office to recognize my submission. To fulfil all righteousness — To meet every legal and official requirement.

In regard to our Saviour’s baptism, there are three difficult questions to be answered: 1. Being sinless, how could he be baptized with the baptism of repentance? 2. Being John’s superior, how could he receive baptism from him? 3. Being king, Messiah, how could he be prepared to become a subject of his own kingdom?

1. To the first question it is replied, that Christ’s whole life was a bearing the sins of others. He assumed humanity, that the penal liabilities of humanity might be imputed to him.

2. To the second question it is replied, that, however superior our Lord was in nature, John was at that moment his superior in office. So the priest who anoints the king, or the chancellor or judge who administers the oath to the president, is at that moment his official superior.

3. To the third question it is replied, that every candidate baptized for fitness for the coming kingdom, is baptized for his own place in that kingdom; the subject for subjection, the king for royalty. John’s baptism of Jesus, therefore, was, as it were, an unction for his kingship or priesthood.

Verse 15. To fulfil all righteousness. — See note on verse 3. To the remarks there, may be added, that our Lord says, “It becometh us to fulfil all righteousness,” using the plural; by which form of speaking he urged John to his duty. Christ, who never sinned, was not under obligation to submit to John’s baptism as a baptism upon repentance, nor was he received by John under that condition; for John’s reluctance to baptize Christ was an explicit declaration that he “needed no repentance.” But he was baptized by him, as stated in the note referred to, on the simple ground of “fulfilling all righteousness,” which is to be understood of obedience to every appointment of his Father, the reasons of which, notwithstanding many have been given, as that it was to honour John’s ministry, &c., are not clearly revealed; so that it becomes us to confess our ignorance. It was sufficient for our Lord that such was the Divine will that he should be baptized of John, and that John, though overwhelmed with a just sense of his inferiority, should baptize him; and it was “the righteousness” of both to obey. Some light is, however, thrown upon this act by the phrase rendered, “it becometh us to fulfil,” &c., prepon estin hmin, intimating fitness and propriety, rather than that obligation under which all the Jews were placed to submit to the baptism of John. This “fitness” appears to have arisen out of the mutual testimony that John and Jesus were to give to each other’s mission; and thus a connection was established between the forerunner and him whose herald he was; so that the person to whom John gave testimony as Messiah could not be mistaken. The notion that Christ was baptized with reference to the entrance of the Levitical priests into their office by anointing and baptism, does not seem to be well founded, since their baptism was a mere ablution, which was constantly repeated during their ministry.

V. 16. And Jesus being baptized-Let our Lord's submitting to baptism teach us a holy exactness in the observance of those institutions which owe their obligation merely to a Divine command. Surely thus it becometh all his followers to fulfil all righteousness.

Jesus had no sin to wash away. And yet he was baptized. And God owned his ordinance, so as to make it the season of pouring forth the Holy Spirit upon him. And where can we expect this sacred effusion, but in an humble attendance on Divine appointments?

Lo, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God-St. Luke adds, in a bodily form-Probably in a glorious appearance of fire, perhaps in the shape of a dove, descending with a hovering motion, till it rested upon him. This was a visible token of those secret operations of the blessed Spirit, by which he was anointed in a peculiar manner; and abundantly fitted for his public work.

Verse 16. The heavens were opened unto him] That is, to John the Baptist-and he, John, saw the Spirit of God-lighting upon him, i.e. Jesus. There has been some controversy about the manner and form in which the Spirit of God rendered itself visible on this occasion. St. Luke, Luke 3:22, says it was in a bodily shape like to a dove: and this likeness to a dove some refer to a hovering motion, like to that of a dove, and not to the form of the dove itself: but the terms of the text are too precise to admit of this far-fetched interpretation.

This passage affords no mean proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. That three distinct persons are here, represented, there can be no dispute. 1. The person of Jesus Christ, baptized by John in Jordan. 2. The person of the Holy Ghost in a bodily shape, (swmatikw eidei, Luke 3:22) like a dove. 3. The person of the Father; a voice came out of heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, &c. The voice is here represented as proceeding from a different place to that in which the persons of the Son and Holy Spirit were manifested; and merely, I think, more forcibly to mark this Divine personality.

Verse 16. And Jesus, when he was baptized, &c. — Hereby he was, 1st, installed into his ministerial office, as the priests were by washing, Exodus 29:4; Leviticus 8:6; 2d, engaged solemnly in the same military work with us against sin and Satan; 3d, admitted a member of the gospel Church, as he was before of the Jewish, by circumcision; 4th, he was baptized as a public person, the Head of his Church, in whom, and by virtue of whose baptism, all his members are baptized spiritually, Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12. Went up straightway out of the water — Or, as the original, anebh apo tou udatov, rather signifies, ascended from the water, namely, went up from the banks of Jordan. The heavens were opened unto him — For his sake, appearing as if they had been rent asunder directly over his head. It is probable they might resemble that opening of the heavens which we often see in a time of great lightning, when the sky seems to divide, to make the fuller and clearer way for the lightning: although, doubtless, this was much more striking and glorious. And he saw — Christ himself saw, and also John the Baptist, as appears by John 1:33, 34; and by this he was further confirmed that this was the very Christ: — the Spirit of God descending like a dove — Not only in a hovering, dove-like motion, but, it seems, with a bright flame, in the shape of a dove, for St. Luke says, Luke 3:22, swmatikw eidei, wsei peristeran, in a bodily shape, as a dove. See also John 1:32. The Holy Spirit descended upon him in this form to signify what Christ is, 1st, in his own nature to them that come to him, meek and loving; 2d, in the execution of his office, reconciling us to the Father, and bringing us good tidings of peace and reconciliation, as the dove brought Noah tidings of the deluge being assuaged; 3d, in the operations of his Spirit upon his people, whereby they are made meek, lowly, and harmless as doves. And lighting upon him — As a visible token of a new degree of the Holy Ghost’s operation in Christ, now at his entrance upon his public employment, even of that Spirit by which, according to the intimations God had given in his word, he was anointed in a peculiar manner, and abundantly fitted for his public work. Psalm 45:7; Isaiah 61:1. And thus was Christ installed into his ministerial function, both by baptism and the unction of the Holy Ghost, as the priests of old were by washing and anointing.

Ver. 16. Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him. This is the consecration of the Saviour for his ministry, without human hands. It is altogether Divine. It followed his baptism, for means are attended with grace. David after his anointing slew in succession a lion, a bear, and the gigantic Goliath. In like manner Solomon was taken to the fount of the Gihon above Jerusalem, and there washed and consecrated. He then mounted his father’s horse, and marched against the rebels. St. Luke adds, Luke 3:21, that when all the people were baptized, “Jesus prayed,” and they seem to have gathered round him. Then it was that the heavens were opened; and according to Jerome, the glory shone along the Jordan to some extent. This visible splendour was the ancient emblem of the divine presence. This glory John saw, the seal from heaven of the Saviour’s designation, as the prophet, the priest, the prince of his church. And the testimony of John to the scribes corresponds to this. “I knew him not; but he who sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and resting on him, the same is he that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.” John 1:33, 34. To this testimony the apostles appeal, as a higher revelation than that of the prophets. 2 Peter 1:17, 18. Colossians 1:13. Matthew 17:5. If it be asked why the similitude of a dove was preferred to emblems of fire, or chariots of glory; we might say, because of his meekness, and lowliness of heart. “He shall not cry, nor lift up (a banner) nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.” Isaiah 42:2. It was that we might approach him, arrayed in every engaging form of innocence, mildness, affability, and love.

16. Baptized — How he was baptized is not said. His coming out of the water aids us not in guessing how, for the preposition properly signifies from. Nor if Jesus waded into and out of the water, would it in the least aid the matter. Thousands in ancient and modern times have been baptized by affusion, as they are represented in ancient pictures, standing or kneeling in the bed of a stream. But at any rate, the mode of his baptism was such as to make it the symbol and picture of the spiritual baptism which forthwith descended upon him in dovelike form.

And he saw — That is, Jesus saw the dovelike Spirit. And John says that he saw it John 1:32. There is no proof for the opinion of some that it was unseen by many others. Like a dove — That is, in a dovelike shape, as Luke beyond all equivocation declares — in a bodily shape like a dove. That is, the Spirit invested itself with a dove form, in order to make itself visible to their senses. It assumed the form of a dove, as that bird was to the minds of those spectators the emblem of innocence. We cannot understand the purpose of commentators who endeavour to mar the beauty of this gracious manifestation by talking of its not being a dovelike form, but forsooth a quivering motion, (of what?) like a dove!

And here have we not a striking illustration of the Incarnation? As the Holy Spirit the third hypostasis in the Trinity, assumes the bodily form of a dove by way of self-manifestation to the eyes of men, so what difficulty in supposing that the second person of the Trinity should become God manifest in the flesh in a human form? So, many a time in the Old Testament, the angel of Jehovah, or rather the angel-Jehovah, being no other than Jehovah manifest, is described as appearing to the patriarchs. In Eden Jehovah-God walked in the garden, and pronounced sentence upon Adam. Jacob wrestled with God “face to face” at Peniel. The angel-Jehovah appeared to Moses, and said, “I am the God of thy Father.” And revealing his name, to be uttered to Pharaoh, he says: “Thus shalt thou say, I AM hath sent me unto you.” The most learned doctors in the Church, in all ages, have agreed, and that on most reliable ground, that this personage so at various times appearing, was no other than the Son of Man, seen at last in vision by Daniel, (chap. 7,) invested with “an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away.” Few persons, at any rate, feel any difficulty in supposing, or at least comprehending and conceiving, that these angelic forms were visible embodiments of the person of Jehovah. What greater difficulty is there in conceiving that the person of Jesus should have been as truly the visible representative manifestation, or embodiment, of the same Divine Being?

Verse 16. Went up straightway out of the water, &c. — That it should be stated that he went up straightway out of, or rather FROM the water, has its reason, or otherwise it would be a trifling remark; for why should he remain in the water after he had been baptized? It is manifest that the descent of the Holy Spirit did not take place during the administration of the rite to him, which is a clear proof that it was a distinct act of God, wholly unconnected with the baptism of John; so that this baptism was not a means of communicating this grace; for John baptized not with the Holy Ghost; and it was no doubt to mark this circumstance, that his departing from the water, that is, ascending the bank of the Jordan, IMMEDIATELY after his baptism, is noticed. Campbell renders it, “Jesus, being baptized, no sooner arose out of the water than heaven was opened,” &c., which is a very forced translation of anebh euquv apo tou udatov. The common version is to be every way preferred; or, if any alteration were thought necessary, “and scarcely had he ascended from the water,” as suggested by several critics, would be preferable. The adverb has been variously arranged in the sentence by others; but none of them appear to have caught the intention of the evangelist, which evidently was, to mark distinctly the difference of time between the ASCENT from the river and the DESCENT of the Spirit, so as to guard against the idea, that the baptism of John was an ordinance through which the effusion of the Holy Spirit upon Christ was dispensed.

The heavens were opened, &c. — When a meteor, or any extraordinary appearance, falling from the clouds or from the higher regions of the atmosphere, occurred, the Jews usually expressed it by the phrase, “the heavens were opened.” Unto him, some think to Christ, in the sense of for his sake; but more probably the sense is, they were opened unto John; for his conviction the sign was made a visible and splendid one, because he was to be the witness of those things, and to give his public testimony to them.

Descending like a dove, and lighting upon him. — Tertullian and St. Augustine entertained the notion that a real dove was employed as the visible sign on this occasion. It does not, however, clearly appear that the likeness of a dove was apparent. St. Luke says, “And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him;” but the bodily shape, swmatikw eidei, may mean no more than a defined, visible appearance; and the comparison may be between the motion of this appearance in its descent, and the motion of a dove when alighting. But, whether this view be taken, or, which is at least equally probable, that the effulgence which broke from the heavens:, had the similitude of a dove, the conclusion is the same; for, whether by the shape or the peculiarity of the motion, the idea of a dove was strongly and INTENTIONALLY excited in the mind of John; the reason of which is justly and beautifully conceived by Archbishop Leighton: “The Holy Ghost, descended upon the apostles in the shape of fire; there was something to be purged in them; but on Christ as a dove, because there was no need of cleansing or purging any thing. That, therefore, was a symbol of the spotless purity of his nature.”

V. 17. And lo, a voice-We have here a glorious manifestation of the ever-blessed Trinity: the Father speaking from heaven, the Son spoken to, the Holy Ghost descending upon him.

In whom I delight-What an encomium is this! How poor to this are all other kinds of praise! To be the pleasure, the delight of God, this is praise indeed: this is true glory: this is the highest, the brightest light, that virtue can appear in.

Verse 17. In whom I am well pleased.] en w endakhsa in whom I have delighted-though it is supposed that the past tense is here used for the present: but See Clarke’s note on “Matthew 17:5”. By this voice, and overshadowing of the Spirit, the mission of the Lord Jesus was publicly and solemnly accredited; God intimating that he had before delighted in him: the law, in all its ordinances, having pointed him out, for they could not be pleasing to God, but as they were fulfilled in, and showed forth, the Son of man, till, he came.

As the office of a herald is frequently alluded to in this chapter, and also in various other parts of the New Testament, I think it best to give a full account of it here, especially as the office of the ministers of the Gospel is represented by it. Such persons can best apply the different correspondences between their own and the herald’s office. At the Olympic and Isthmian games, heralds were persons of the utmost consequence and importance. Their office was:-

1. To proclaim from a scaffold, or elevated place, the combat that was to be entered on.

2. To summon the Agonistæ, or contenders, to make their appearance, and to announce their names.

3. To specify the prize for which they were to contend.

4. To admonish and animate, with appropriate discourses, the athletæ, or combatants.

5. To set before them, and explain, the laws of the agones, or contenders; that they might see that even the conqueror could not receive the crown or prize, unless he had strove lawfully.

6. After the conflict was ended, to bring the business before the judges, and, according to their determination, to proclaim the victor.

7. To deliver the prize to the conqueror, and to put the crown on his head, in the presence of the assembly.

8. They were the persons who convoked all solemn and religious assemblies, and brought forth, and often slew, the sacrifices offered on those occasions.

9. They frequently called the attention of the people, during the sacrifices, to the subject of devotion, with hoc age! touto pratte: mind what you are about, don’t be idle; think of nothing else. See PLUTARCH in Coriolanus.

The office, and nearly the word itself, was in use among the ancient Babylonians, as appears from Daniel 3:4, where the Chaldee word azwrk caroza, is rendered by the Septuagint khrux kerux, and by our translation, very properly, herald. His business in the above place was to call an assembly of the people, for the purpose of public worship; to describe the object and nature of that worship, and the punishment to be inflicted on those who did not join in the worship, and properly assist in the solemnities of the occasion.

Daniel 3:4, is the only place in our translation, in which the word herald is used: but the word khrux, used by St. Paul, 1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11, and by St. Peter, 2 Peter 3:5, is found in the Septuagint, Genesis 41:43, as well as in Daniel 3:4, and the verb khrussw is found in different places of that version, and in a great number of places in the New Testament.

It is worthy of remark, that the office of the khrux, kerux, or herald, must have been anciently known, and indeed established, among the Egyptians: for in Genesis 41:43, where an account is given of the promotion of Joseph to the second place in the kingdom, where we say, And they cried before him, saying, Bow the knee; the Septuagint has kai ekhruxen emprosqen autou khrux\ And a HERALD made proclamation before him. As the Septuagint translated this for Ptolemy Philadelphus, the Egyptian king, and were in Egypt when they translated the law, we may safely infer that the office was not only known, but in use among the Egyptians, being denominated in their language qrba abrek, which our translators, following the Vulgate, have rendered, Bow the knee; but which the Septuagint understood to be the title of an officer, who was the same among the Egyptians as the khrux among the Greeks. This is a probable meaning of the word, which escaped me when I wrote the note on Genesis 41:43.

As every kind of office had some peculiar badge, or ensign, by which it was known among the ancients, so the heralds were known by generally carrying a caduceus. This was a rod with two spread wings at the top, and about which two serpents were entwined. The poets fabled that this rod was given by Apollo, the god of wisdom and music, to Mercury, the god of eloquence, and the messenger of the gods. To it wonderful properties are ascribed-especially that it produces sleep, and that it raises the dead. Who does not at once see, that the caduceus and its properties clearly point out the office, honour, and influence of the herald? As persons of strong voice, and ready speech, and copious eloquence, were always chosen for heralds, they were represented as endued with wisdom and eloquence from above. They lulled men to sleep, i.e. by their persuasive powers of speech, they calmed the turbulent dispositions of an inflamed populace, when proceeding to acts of rebellion and anarchy; or they roused the dormant zeal of the community, who, through long oppression, despairing of succour or relief, seemed careless about their best interests being stupidly resolved to sink under their burdens, and expect release only in death. As to the caduceus itself, it was ever the emblem of peace among the ancients: the rod was the emblem of power; the two serpents, of wisdom and prudence; and the two wings, of diligence and despatch. The first idea of this wonderful rod seems to have been borrowed from the rod of Moses. See Clarke’s note on “Exodus 4:17”.

The word khrux kerux, or herald, here used, is evidently derived from khrussein, to proclaim, call aloud; and this from ghruv, the voice; because these persons were never employed in any business, but such only as could not be transacted but by the powers of speech, and the energy of ratiocination.

For the derivation of the word herald, we must look to the northern languages. Its meaning in Junius, Skinner, and Minshieu, are various, but not essentially different; they all seem to point out different parts of the herald’s office. 1. In the Belgic, heer signifies army. Hence heer-alt, a senior officer, or general, in the army. 2. Or heer-held, the hero of the army: he who had distinguished himself most in his country’s behalf. 3. Or from the Gallo-teutonic herr-haut, the high lord, because their persons were so universally respected, as we have already seen. 4. Or from the simple Teutonic herr-hold, he who is faithful to his lord. And, lastly, according to Minshieu, from the verb hier-holden, stop here; because, in proclaiming peace, they arrested bloodshed and death, and prevented the farther progress of war.

These officers act an important part in all heroic history, and particularly in the Iliad and Odyssey, from which, as the subject is of so much importance, I shall make a few extracts.

I. Their character was sacred. Homer gives them the epithet of divine, qeioi.

----------dolwn, eumhdeov uiov,

khrukov qeioi. Iliad x. 315.

“Dolon, son of Eumedes, the divine herald.” They were also termed inviolable, asuloi; also, great, admirable, &c. In the first book of the Iliad, we have a proof of the respect paid to heralds, and the inviolability of their persons. Agamemnon commands the heralds, Talthybius and Eurybates, his faithful ministers, to go to the tent of Achilles, seize the young Briseis, and bring her to him. They reluctantly obey; but, when they come into the presence of Achilles, knowing the injustice of their master’s cause, they are afraid to announce their mission. Achilles, guessing their errand, thus addresses them:-

Cairete, khrukev, Diov aggeloi, hde kai andrwn. k. t. l. “Hail, O ye heralds, messengers of God and of men! come forward. I cannot blame you-Agamemnon only is culpable, who has sent you for the beautiful Briseis. But come, O godlike Patroclus, bring forth the damsel, and deliver her to them, that they may lead her away,” &c., Iliad i. 334, &c.

II. Their functions were numerous; they might enter without danger into besieged cities, or even into battles.

III. They convoked the assemblies of the leaders, according to the orders they received from the general or king.

IV. They commanded silence, when kings were to address the assembly, (Iliad xviii. 503. khrukev d~ ara lawn eshtuon. See also Iliad ii. 280,) and delivered the sceptre into their hands, before they began their harangue.

Hn d~ apa khrux

Cersi skhptron eqhke, siwphsai t~ ekeleusen.

Iliad xxiii. 567.

V. They were the carriers and executors of the royal commands, (Iliad i. 320,) and went in search of those who were summoned to appear, or whose presence was desired.

VI. They were entrusted with the most important missions; and accompanied princes in the most difficult circumstances. Priam, when he went to Achilles, took no person besides a herald with him. (Iliad xxiv. 674, 689.) When Ulysses sent two of his companions to treat with the Lestrygons, he sent a herald at the same time. (Odys. x. 102.) Agamemnon, when he wished to soften Achilles, joined Eurybates and Hodius, his heralds, to the deputation of the princes. (Iliad ix. 170.) VII. Heralds were employed to proclaim and publish whatever was to be known by the people. (Odys. xx. 276.)

VIII. They declared war and proclaimed peace. (Odys. xviii. 334.) IX. They took part in all sacred ceremonies: they mingled the wine and water in the large bowls for the libations, which were made at the conclusion of treaties. They were the priests of the people in many cases; they led forth the victims, cut them in pieces, and divided them among those engaged in the sacrifices. (Odys. i. 109, &c.)

X. In Odyssey lib. xvii., a herald presents a piece of flesh to Telemachus, and pours out his wine.

XI. They sometimes waited on princes at table, and rendered them many other personal services. (Iliad ii. 280; Odys. i. 143, &c., 146, 153; ii. 6,38.) In the Iliad, lib. x. 3, Eurybates carries the clothes to Ulysses. And a herald of Alcinous conducts Demodocus, the singer, into the festive hall. (Odys. viii. 470.) Many others of their functions, services, and privileges, the reader may see, by consulting DAMM’S Homeric Lexicon, under krw. ST. MATTHEW

Verse 17. And lo! — As a further token of the divine regard to Christ, and of the glorious dignity of his person, a voice from heaven, saying, to John, concerning Christ, This is my beloved Son, and to Christ himself, Thou art my beloved Son, Luke 3:22. For it is not improbable that both sentences were pronounced; the voice uttering the words, Thou art my beloved Son, &c. while the Spirit was descending, as if they had been directed to Jesus alone, in answer to his prayer; and, after the Spirit rested on Jesus, the voice, speaking to the Baptist and the multitude, said, This is my beloved Son, &c. St. Luke informs us, that he was praying when this happened, and it is observable that all the voices from heaven, by which the Father bore witness to Christ, were pronounced while he was praying, or quickly after. Luke 9:29, 35; John 12:28. In whom I am well pleased — Or, in whom I delight, That is, whose character I perfectly approve, and in whom I acquiesce as the great Mediator, through whom will I show myself favourable unto sinful creatures. See Isaiah 42:1. The original word properly signifies an entire acquiescence, or a special and singular complacency and satisfaction. This the Father took, in the person and undertaking of Christ; and this, through him, he takes in all true believers, who, by faith, are united to him, and made members of his body. And O, how poor, in comparison of this, are all other kinds of praise, yea, and all other pleasures! To have the approbation, and be the delight of God; this is praise, this is pleasure indeed! This is, at once, true glory and true happiness, and is the highest and brightest light that virtue can appear in.

Ver. 17. And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son. This is the voice from heaven to earth, the declaration of the Father to the human race, that the Christ, arrayed in mortal flesh, was the only-begotten Son of God. The title designates him to be one with the Father, and equal with God. St. Paul’s question is cogent here: “To which of the angels said he at any time, thou art my Son?” How different are these aspects of grace from those cast on the old world, when it repented the Lord that he had made man. Genesis 6:7.

I must superadd here a strong stricture on Dr. Campbell’s new translation of the four gospels. He thus renders Matthew 4:3, 6: “If thou be a son of God!” If the doctor plead the absence of the Greek masculine article, the appeal is unfounded; the article being twice repeated in this verse, with a voice from heaven, as in Matthew 17:5. It was not essential for diabolus to repeat it here. Besides, how can a son of God create, by turning stones to bread? Was any son of God higher than this wicked one, who never invaded the creative prerogatives of the Deity. This, in defiance of all shame, is the running language of all the unitarian books. The faith of diabolus was pure and correct; he doubted not that the Divinity dwelt in Christ; this was a point he durst not dispute; his sole aim was to draw his human nature, in time of hunger, to sin, either by distrusting providence, or by working a miracle for vanity, to demonstrate the truth of what the voice from heaven had said. If our unitarians would speak out in the titles of their books, we might avoid the deleterious poison of their breath. The blasphemy of Diderot in the French academy was, “Strike the wretch, but conceal the hand.” Of this preceptor they are the pupils; they slide their venom not only into our sacred books, but into our magazines, reviews, travels, and school books. Oh christian, beware! Neither touch nor taste the forbidden fruit. If you visit the hospitals of death, you will not come away without infection.

17. Voice from heaven — Proceeding as from the firmament, just as the dove-like form came from what, in optical language, all men would call the opening firmament or sky. My beloved Son — Here the whole Trinity united at the scene. The Son is consecrated by the Spirit, and proclaimed by the Father. So John passed through the three stages of ignorance, faith, and knowledge: ignorance, when he knew him not; faith, when first he saw him; knowledge, when God the Father acknowledged him from heaven. Now he could safely identify him to the world as Lamb of God.

Verse 17. And lo a voice from heaven, &c. — Some absurdly render fwnh, thunder, as though thunder ever uttered articulate sounds. It was a voice uttering the words which follow, the voice of the eternal Father, accrediting to his high office his eternal Son, now incarnate: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Here the articles are most emphatic, Outov estin o uiov mou o agaphtov, This is that Son of mine, that beloved Son, en w eudokhsa, in whom I am well pleased. The aorist, too, is here emphatic also, and is used, after the manner of Greek writers, as including the past, present, and future time; that beloved Son, in whom I have been, am, and shall be well pleased; or, in brief, in whom I am ALWAYS well pleased. Here is the strongest testimony from the highest and most glorious authority. This voice of God repeated on this occasion what it had before solemnly proclaimed by the spirit of prophecy: “Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; MY BELOVED, in whom I am well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him.” This was Christ’s solemn inauguration into his prophetic office.