HISTORY OF JESUS.

Narrative.

VII.

RENEWED CONVERSATION.

PUNDIT.-Will you be good enough now to put before me the particulars of the life of Jesus, upon the reality of which the Christian dispensation so entirely depends?

STUDENT. I will do so with pleasure.

The Jews were expecting the advent of a great personage, who was to deliver the nation from their oppressors, and rule over them in triumph. He was to be a lineal descendant of their early and renowned king David, and was to be known as the Messiah, or the Christ, terms which signify the anointed Jesus is considered to have been the person thus in

one.

dicated.

He was to be preceded by a messenger, who was to prepare the world for his coming, and who is designated in the old prophecy as "Elijah the prophet." There were a priest and his wife, named Zacharias and Elizabeth. These were aged people, and the wife was barren. Suddenly an angel appeared to Zacharias while officiating in the temple, and said to him, "Thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elizabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.-Many shall rejoice at his birth. He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." The child was duly born, and known as John the Baptist, and he is considered to have been the promised precursor of the Messiah.

Three or four months before the birth of John, the same angel, who was called Gabriel, appeared to a cousin of Elizabeth's, named Mary. She was "a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David." The angel announced to her that she was to have a son, who was to be named Jesus, of whom he said, "He shall be great, and shall be called the son of the Highest ; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." Mary wondered how she was to have a child, "seeing," as she observed, "I know not a man." On this the angel said to her, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the son of God." Mary, accordingly, "was found with child by the Holy Ghost." Her husband Joseph, discovering her condition "before they came together," was "minded to put her away privily," not wishing to make a "public example" of her. An angel then appeared to him in a dream, and said, 'Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins." Joseph, accordingly, "being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son; and he called his name Jesus."

John.

P.-Allow me to interrupt you and to ask a few questions. Birth of Zacharias and his wife are represented to have been advanced in years, and the latter to be barren. The angel informs Zacharias that his prayer had been heard, and that his wife was to bear him a son. Is it likely, under the circumstances, that Zacharias could still have been hoping and praying that his aged partner should become prolific?

S. The probability is, undoubtedly, much against his having indulged in such a hope. In fact, when the assurance was given him that his prayer was to be fulfilled, he appeared to think this impossible, and was struck dumb for a time for his incredulity. The statements, therefore, here involve some inconsistency, faith in prayer meeting with its reward, and

Coming of
Elias.

judgment overtaking a doubter, and both visitations affecting the same individual at the same moment. Similar interventions by God had, however, repeatedly occurred. The wives of Abraham and of Isaac, and one of Jacob's wives, were all afflicted with barrenness, and God nevertheless gave them children, the first named when in old age. The wife of Manoah, from whom came Samson, and Hannah, the mother of Samuel, present similar instances. Zacharias may have been encouraged by these interpositions to hope for a like favour in his own case.

P. I should rather conclude that the incidents had been introduced just to magnify the importance of the persons represented to have been so marvellously brought into the world. It is more probable that the writers should have worked from the same idea, derived from one another, than that God should have been in the habit of repeating himself with the same manifestations.

The precursor of Jesus was to be Elijah the prophet, a wellknown personage in the preceding dispensation. How can this be said to be fulfilled by the appearance of a new and unknown person, namely John the Baptist?

S.-You will observe it was said by the angel who announced the birth of John that he was to act "in the spirit and the power of Elias." Jesus, referring to John, said, "If ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come" (Matt. xi. 14.) Afterwards, when the real Elias had appeared together with Moses at the time that Jesus was transfigured on the mount, the disciples put the question to him, "Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?" On which he answered, "Elias truly shall come and restore all things. But I say unto you that Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Then the disciples," it is added, "understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist" (Matt. xvii. 10-13).

P. This appears to me most unsatisfactory. If the real Elijah had just appeared on the mount, could Jesus have pointed to an ideal Elijah as accomplishing the prediction? And would the disciples have accepted such a solution? Nothing could fulfil the position but the appearance of Elijah the prophet himself. To say of another, acting in his spirit

and power, that he was the one spoken of, is no fulfilment, but a mere accommodation. The sense of this weakness appears felt where it is said, "If ye will receive it, this is Elias." Anything whatever may be so accepted, "if ye will receive it." He might have said equally, "This is Abraham, or Moses, if ye will receive it." Afterwards comes the bolder assertion that "Elias is come already;" but this is quite neutralised by the admission made just before that Elias had yet to come, and restore all things. All I can see is an impotent attempt to make it appear that the predicted mission of Elias was fulfilled in John, and I cannot but think that the scene of the transfiguration, wherein the true Elias is said to have shown himself, has been introduced just to help out this idea, though certainly in a clumsy manner.

May I ask did many rejoice at the birth of John the Bap- Mission of tist? and did he effect all that the angel declared he should John. do, namely, turn many of the Israelites to God, bring the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, and make ready a people prepared for the Lord?

S.-There is no record of people rejoicing at the birth of John, nor is it conceivable how, with nothing to mark him out for notice, there should be any such public demonstration at his coming into the world. His ministry is said to have taken effect upon the whole country round about, it being declared that "Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan," went out to him confessing their sins and receiving baptism at his hands (Matt. iii. 5, 6). This, however, on the face of the statement, is clearly an exaggeration, and the universality of John's influence is directly contradicted elsewhere, where it is said that "the publicans justified God, being baptised with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptised of him" (Luke vii. 29, 30). The same unqualified language is used of the offices of Jesus, of whom it is said, "the same baptiseth, and all men come to him" (John iii. 26); whereas, we are also told, "he came unto his own, and his own received him not" (John i. 11). John's preaching consisted in his calling out, "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. iii. 2), and his baptism is hence described as "the baptism of repentance for the re

mission of sins" (Mark i. 4). He, however, clearly declared that his mission was of inferior import to that of Jesus, and unattended by spiritual influences. "I indeed baptise you,” he said, "with water, unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" (Matt. iii. 11). Jesus, on the other hand, greatly exalted John, saying of him, "Verily I say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist" (Matt. xi. 11), putting him thus on a level with Abraham, Moses, Samuel, David, Elijah, &c.

:

P. All that is said of John seems to me marked with gross exaggeration. He could not have baptized the whole region round about, if they all came and were baptized by Jesus. The statements neutralize each other, and the passages you cite as opposed to them contradict them effectually. John seems to have held Jesus up to admiration, and in return Jesus John.

John called on men to repent, as the kingdom of heaven was at hand. Was such kingdom established?

S. There has been nothing of the kind as yet. Jesus in fact said, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John xviii. 36). P. Then John's appears to have been a vain message. His baptism is said to have been for the remission of sins. this mean that those who underwent it had their sins washed away?

Does

S. That cannot have been so, as it is said, "Without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. ix. 22). The only blood that could wash away sin is that of Jesus, and that had not been shed.

P.-Then of what use was the office of John? If the repentance and the baptism he called for could neither take away sin, nor command spiritual influences, of what value was it?

S.-John's baptism is shown to have had no efficacy. The true baptism was that appointed by Jesus after his resurrection, which was to be "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. xxviii. 19). (Matt. xxviii. 19). Paul, in the course of his ministry, met with persons who had undergone John's baptism only, and who had "not so much as heard whether there was any Holy Ghost ;" and explaining to them