with a girdle of a skin about his loins, and he did eat locusts and wild honey; 7 and preached, saying, There cometh one

pression, and painted the Baptist as arrayed in a camel's skin. The reference was no doubt to a coarse kind of sackcloth manufactured out of the strongest hairs of the camel. It made a rough hairy robe; and thus John would be, like Elijah, an hairy man.' (2 Kings i. 8.) He was entirely self denied to all luxury in dress.

And had a girdle of skin about his loins. Tyndale's first translation (1526) was, and wyth a gerdyll off a beestes skyn about hys loynes. In his second version (1534) he left out the word beestes, but unhappily left standing the indefinite article, and hence its presence in King James's version. Coverdale's version is and with a lethron gerdell aboute his loynes. "The leathern girdle," says Horatio B. Hackett, "may be seen around the body of the common "labourer in the East, when fully dressed, almost everywhere; whereas men of "wealth take special pride in displaying a rich sash of silk or some other costly "fabric." (Illustrations of Scripture, p. 61.) Chardin tells us that the dervishes in the East, in his time, wore great leathern girdles. (Harmer's Observations, vol. iv., p. 416.) They still wear them. And these dervishes, it may be noted,at least the highest specimens of them,-most nearly resemble, in their character and in the functions of their ministry, such men as John and Elijah. "All the "great men in the East," says Dr. Wolff, "who have been celebrated either as "poets, or historians, or lawyers, have been dervishes.

66

If they did not exist, no man would be safe in the deserts among the savages. They are the "chief people in the East who keep in the recollection of those savages that "there are ties between heaven and earth. They restrain the tyrant in his oppression of his subjects; and are, in fact, the great benefactors of the human race in the East. All the prophets of old were dervishes, beyond all 'doubt, in their actions, in their style of speaking, and in their dress." (Travels and Adventures, p. 297.)

46

44

And did eat locusts and wild honey. That is, his customary food was locusts and wild honey, the plainest of fare. He not only refrained from pampering 'the flesh,' he kept it under' (1 Cor. ix. 27), and made it 'endure hardness' (2 Tim. ii. 3) for great militant purposes. Locusts: "A kind of great

'fly," says Petter, "which useth to eat and devour the tops of corn, herbs, "and trees." Jerome mentions that he had seen the whole land of Judæa covered with them. (Comment. on Joel ii. 20.) "It is well known," says Horatio B. Hackett, “that the poorer class of people eat them, cooked or raw, "in all the eastern countries where they are found." (Illustrations, p. 61.) Wild honey: Not honey-dew, as Robinson and Grimm suppose, a kind of gum that is found on the leaves of certain trees. The expression doubtless denotes real wild honey, the product of wild bees. Henry Maundrell mentions that when he was passing through the wilderness of Judæa, between the Dead Sea and Jericho, he "perceived a strong scent of honey and wax, the sun being hot; "and the bees," he adds, "were very industrious about the blossoms of that salt "weed which the plain produces." (Journey, p. 86, ed. 1749.) Dr. Tristram says: "The innumerable fissures and clefts of the limestone rocks, which every.

mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. 8 I indeed have baptized

"where flank the valleys, afford in their recesses secure shelter for any number of "swarms of wild bees; and many of the Bedouin, particularly about the wilder"ness of Judæa, obtain their subsistence by bee-hunting, bringing into Jerusalem "jars of that wild honey on which John the Baptist fed in the wilderness." (The Land of Israel, p. 88.) The asceticism of John in food and raiment has its lessons. There are persons who ought always to be ascetics. It is their only chance for freedom from grossness and moral degradation. There are times, too, when all men should put both bit and bridle on the animal within them, keeping it on scanty diet and working it hard. And all moral reformers, who have it as their peculiar mission to expose the vices of a self-indulgent age, and to lead their fellow-men into cleaner ways and a nobler style of life, would require to be, in their own persons, unmistakable examples of the higher types of sobriety and self-denial.

It is as if he had Instead, however,

VER. 7. And he preached. That is, proclaimed (like a herald). Saying, There cometh after me He that is mightier than I. said, My Suzerain, my Lord Paramount, is coming after me. of employing a merely generic term to designate the Prince whose harbinger he was, he brings into view His superiority in might or strength. He who is stronger than I is coming after me. This is the gospel,' says Zuingli, though

in epitome.' The people were prone to think that John himself had immense 'power' with God, and that all would be well with them if they should only get a baptism from his hands; they had an exaggerated idea of his power. He sought to undeceive them. He was but a humble servant, a herald, a forerunner. But his Master was mighty'; his Master had real power with God. He could wield all influences; touch all springs; ascend all heights; descend to all depths. He was able to save to the uttermost,' to pardon the most criminal, and to purify the most unclean.

The latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and undo. Undo is Wycliffe's word, and better than the apparently contradictory unloose of our English versions. Purvey, in his revision of Wycliffe, has unlace. The word translated latchet means properly thong; but there is a connection between latch, latchet, and lace. John alleges that there was no standard of comparison, by means of which the relative superiority of the Messiah to himself could be measured. The Messiah was his master, and John was His herald and har binger. Nevertheless, he did not deserve the honour of that post; he did not even deserve the honour of being permitted to stoop down and undo the latchets of his Master's sandals; that was a far higher honour than any man deserved. How exceedingly high, then, must the dignity of Jesus be!

VER. 8. I baptized you with water. A good translation, so far at least as the substance of the meaning is concerned. In the Received Text the original expression is in water. But Tischendorf and Alford have thrown out the preposition in, under the sanction of the manuscripts & B HA 33 and others, and of the Vulgate version. If the omission be legitimate, then the evangelist's expression corresponds to Luke's (iii. 16), and is strictly translated with water,

you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from

denoting the material employed. If, however, the reading of the Received Text should be retained, then the form of the expression corresponds to Matthew's (iii. 11), and could only be freely rendered with water. The preposition in would probably be accounted for by the original meaning of the verb to baptize; this original meaning leaving its impress on the form of expression, even when the purificatory act was effected by some other mode than merging. (See Comm. on Matt. iii. 6, 16.)

But He shall baptize you. There is here no emphasis on the you, and it would be wrong therefore to lay weight upon the word, in determining the question of the extent of the baptism which Christ administered, and still administers. Nevertheless it is worthy of note that the Baptist did not feel himself fettered in the pronominal phraseology which he employed.

With the Holy Spirit. There is a somewhat corresponding uncertainty in reference to the with in this clause, as there is in relation to the preceding clause. Tischendorf indeed, in his eighth edition, inserts in this clause the preposition in, though he omits it in the preceding clause. Lachmann, on the other hand, doubts its genuineness here, though he does not doubt it as regards the preceding clause. Alford omits it in both the clauses, supposing that the Received Text has been artificially assimilated to Matthew's form of phraseology. It is a matter of no practical moment whether it be admitted, as in Matthew, or omitted, as in Luke. If it be omitted, the expression is literally translated · with the Holy Spirit.' If it be retained, the expression is only freely thus rendered. The Holy Spirit: The article is wanting in the original. It was not needed, as the expression was, of itself, in Greek, sufficiently definite. Our usage however, in reference to the article, does not correspond absolutely to the usage of the Greeks; and hence it is according to the spirit, though not according to the letter, of the evangelist's phraseology that we say the Holy Spirit. When Wakefield rendered the expression a holy spirit, and Godwin, similarly, a Divine Spirit, they forgot that there is, in the letter of the original text, no more warrant for a than for the. The English language is richer than the Greek in the matter of articles, and if, in such a case as the one before us, the definite article be objected to, much more should the indefinite. The idea of the Baptist was not, that the Messiah would institute a more mystic style of water baptism, or a style of water baptism that would be instinct with a more efficacious spiritual energy, but it was that the Messiah would transcend altogether, in His purificatory operations, the sphere of the material and corporeal. He could act on spirit; He could act on spirit with Spirit; and He would thus act. He would furnish to men the influence from above that was needed in order to purity of heart and life; He would procure and pour out the influence of the Divine Spirit.

VER. 9. And it came to pass in those days. Those days, namely, when John was engaged in preaching and baptizing in the wilderness that stretched along the banks of the Jordan.

Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. 10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the

That Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan. In the Greek it is not in, but to, or into, the Jordan. It is as if the evangelist had been intending to say, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee to the Jordan, and was there baptized by John. But the evangelist, though having distinctly in view the Saviour's arrival at the Jordan, was yet in haste, as it were, to mention the fact of His baptism; and hence the peculiar collocation of the phraseology. It was quite in accordance with his ordinary inartificial style of composition, as exemplified for instance in ver. 1-4 and ver. 39. A similar transposition occurs in Matt. ii. 23, where we read, and He came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth.' In the original it is to a city or into a city, the idea being that Joseph came to a city called Nazareth and then dwelt there. Of course, we cannot suppose that Mark meant that Jesus was baptized into the Jordan. This interpretation is out of the question, when we take into account that in the verse immediately preceding we have Mark's way of construing the word baptized. Jesus came to the Jordan, and was baptized in the Jordan. His baptism was finely significant. It was a visible picture of the invisible descent into His humanity of the fulness of the Divine Spirit. He hence became full, officially, of the Holy Spirit. He received the Spirit 'without measure'; so that the Divine Spirit had His hand, not only in the preparation of the body of our Lord (Luke i. 35), but also, and gloriously, in the preparation of His spirit (Isa. xi. 2, 3; lxi. 1).

Nazareth of Galilee. There are still many traces of this despised little 'city,' and quite a thriving modern town is springing up on the steep slope of the hill. It is thriving, says Dr. Tristram, in part, because it is a Christian not a Moslem place,' and in part because it is 'the centre for the commerce of the districts east of Jordan.' (The Land of Israel, p. 122.) "Bare and feature"less, singularly unattractive in its landscape, with scarcely a tree to relieve the "monotony of its brown and dreary hill, without ruins or remains, without one "precisely identified locality, there is yet a reality in the associations of Naz"areth which stirs the soul of the Christian to its very depths. . . . It was "the nursery of One whose mission was to meet man, and man's deepest needs, "on the platform of common-place daily life. Can any good thing come out "of Nazareth?' might naturally be asked, not only by the proud Jew of the "south, but by the dweller among the hills of Galilee, or by the fair lake of "Gennesaret." (The Land of Israel, p. 123.)

Thiess supposes that the term part of the Saviour, a certain

VER. 10. And straightway. Or, immediately. was intended to indicate that there was, on the hastiness of movement. "The baptism," says he, "was for Him no baptism; "He needed it not. It was only the people and the Baptist who needed it. "The people needed the example; John needed the honour." It was befitting, therefore, in the Saviour to be quick in leaving the scene of the ordinance. Thiess misunderstands the case, however. It is not hastiness that is indicated, but uninterrupted sequence.

Coming up out of the water. Or rather, going up out of the water, that is,

heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: 11 and there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

going up to the bank of the river. (Comp. Matt. iii. 16.) Our Saviour, with the Baptist, had been within the margin of the stream. For the meaning of the word which we render going up, see Matt. v. 1, xiv. 23, xv. 29; Mark iii. 13, vi. 51, x. 32; John i. 51, iii. 13, vi. 62, xx. 17.

He saw the heavens rent asunder. Or cleft, or parted.

Our word schism

comes from the term employed by the evangelist; and so does our geological word schist or splitting rock. When it is said He saw the heavens parted,' the reference is not to John, but to Jesus, although it is also true that John saw the wonderful phenomenon as well as Jesus. (See John i. 33.) The revelation from above was primarily intended for our Lord Himself, in His humanity; for, of course, there must have been steps of gradation, and times and seasons of progression, in the development of His humanity.

And the Spirit, as a dove, descending upon Him. That was His true baptism, the thing signified. It was His formal inauguration, in the year of His perfect maturity, His thirtieth year (Luke iii. 23), to His great work, a work that gathered up into itself all the greatest offices of human society. Henceforth the Lord was replenished, not only in actual fact, but to His own subjective consciousness, with all the fulness of influences that were required in His complex personality, to constitute Him the official Head of the human race, the Prophet of prophets, the Priest of priests, the King of kings. It was as a dove that the Spirit descended on Him, a most captivating symbolism. The eagle too was in our Lord; everything about Him was mingled with the sublime; but the dove was predominant. Not only in His terrestrial career, but all along the ages, it is the power of His gentleness and tenderness and meekness, His love in short, that has been victorious. He has wooed' and 'won.'

VER. 11. And a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art My beloved Son, in Thee I am well-pleased. Very literally, I was well-pleased, viz. in Thy preexistent state. The voice would thrill a variety of chords in our Lord's human heart, which would vibrate at once into the infinity of His higher being. The fulness of the Messianic self-consciousness would awake. Not the shadow of a film would obscure the glory of the fact that He was the Father's Son, and that He had been His darling from everlasting (dilectus singularissima dilectione: CAJETAN). His thoughts might shape themselves into some such forms as the following: My Father has said it. I know My Father's voice. Everlasting memories come rushing in. He says that I am His Beloved! He used to say it before the foundation of the world. This mission which I have undertaken is dear, beyond expression, to His infinite heart. It is dear to Mine too. I rejoiced from of old, in the habitable part of the earth, while as yet there was none of it, 'nor the highest part of the dust of the world.' He says, 'In Thee I was wellpleased!'-' was' from the first, and still 'am.' Oh how I delight, My Father, to

do Thy will! 'Thy' will is My' will. There has ever been, there will ever be, the inmost union of the two. Instead of in Thee, the Received Text reads in whom, a reading borrowed from Matt. iii. 17, which presents the whole utterance