IIL the incident. According to this view, at one parti- CHAP. cular period of his life, or at several times, the earthly and temporal thoughts, thus parabolically described as a personal contest with the Principle of Evil, passed through the mind of Jesus, and arrayed before him the image constantly present to the minds of his countrymen, that of the author of a new temporal theocracy. For so completely were the suggestions in unison with the popular expectation, that ambition, if it had taken a human or a worldly turn, might have urged precisely such displays of supernatural power as are represented in the temptations of Jesus. On no two points, probably, would the Jews have so entirely coincided, as in expecting the Messiah to assume his title and dignity, before the view of the whole people, and in the most public and imposing manner; such for instance, as, springing from the highest point of the temple, to have appeared floating in the air, or preternaturally poised upon the unyielding element; any miraculous act, in short, of a totally opposite character to those more private, more humane, and, if we may so speak, more unassuming signs, to which he himself appealed as the evidences of his mission. To be the lord of all the kingdoms, at least of Palestine, if not of the whole world, was, according to the same popular belief, the admitted right of the Messiah. If then, as the history implies, the Saviour was tried by the intrusion of worldly thoughts, whether according to the common literal interpretation, actually urged by the Principle of Evil, in his proper person, or, according to this CHAP. III. more modified interpretation of the passage, suggested to his mind, such was the natural turn which they might have taken. But, however interpreted, the moral purport of the scene remains the same - the intimation that the strongest and most lively impressions were made upon the mind of Jesus, to withdraw him from the purely religious end of his being upon earth, to transform him from the author of a moral revolution to be slowly wrought by the introduction of new principles of virtue, and new rules for individual and social happiness, to the vulgar station of one of the great monarchs or conquerors of mankind; to degrade him from a being who was to offer to man the gift of eternal life, and elevate his nature to a previous fitness for that exalted destiny, to one whose influence over his own generation might have been more instantaneously manifest, but which could have been as little permanently beneficial as that of any other of those remarkable names, which, especially in the East, have blazed for a time and expired. From the desert, not improbably supposed to be that of Quarantania, lying between Jericho and Jerusalem, where tradition, in Palestine unfortunately of no great authority, still points out the scene of this great spiritual conflict, and where a mountain*, commanding an almost boundless prospect of the valleys and hills of Judæa, is shown as that from whence Jesus looked down unmoved on * The best description of this mountain is in the Travels of the Abbé Mariti. the kingdoms of the earth, the Son of Man re- CHAP. turned to the scene of John's baptism. In the mean time the success of the new prophet, III. from Jeru John. the Baptist, had excited the attention, if not the jealousy, of the ruling authorities of the Jews. The Deputation solemn deputation appeared to inquire into his pre-salem to tensions. The Pharisees probably at this time predominated in the great council, and the delegates, as of this sect, framed their questions in accordance with the popular traditions, as well as with the prophetic writings *: they inquire whether he is the Christ, or Elias, or the prophet.t John at once disclaims his title to the appellation of the Christ; nor is he Elijah, personally returned, according to the vulgar expectation ‡; nor Jeremiah, to whom tradition assigned the name of "the prophet," who was to rise from the dead at the coming of the Messiah, in order, it was supposed, to restore the tabernacle, the ark, and the altar of incense, which he was said. to have concealed in a cave on the destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar, and which were to be brought again to light at the Messiah's coming. § The next day John renewed his declaration that he was the harbinger ||, described in the prophet Isaiah, who, according to the custom in the progresses of Oriental monarchs, was to go before, and cutting through mountains and bridging val The Sanhedrin alone could judge a tribe, the high priest, or a prophet, (Sanhedrin Paroch. i.) Hence " a prophet could not perish out of Jerusalem." Luke, xiii. 33. Lightfoot, Harm. Ev. + John, i. 19-28. Wetstein. Nov. Test. in loc. III. Jesus de John as the CHAP. leys, to make a wide and level way for the advance of the Great King. So John was to remove some of the moral impediments for the reception of Christ. At the same time, as Jesus mingled undistinguished among the crowd, without directly designating him, he declared the actual presence of the mightier teacher who was about to appear. The next day, in the more private circle of his signated by believers, John did not scruple to point out more distinctly the person of the Messiah.* The occasion of his remarkable speech (it has been suggested with much probability) was the passing of large flocks of sheep and lambs, which, from the rich pastoral districts beyond the river, crossed the Jordan at the ford, and were driven on to the metropolis, to furnish either the usual daily sacrifices or those for the approaching passover. The Baptist, as they were passing, glanced from them to Jesus, declared him to be that superior Being, of whom he was but the humble harbinger, and described him as "the Lamb of Godt, which taketh away the sins of the world." Unblemished * John, i. 35, 36. Supposing (as is the general opinion) that this term refers to the expiatory sacrifice of Christ, according to the analogy between the death of Jesus and the sacrificial victims, subsequently developed by the apostles (and certainly the narrower sense maintained by Grotius, and the modern learned writers (see Rosenmullerand Kuinoel in loc.) are by no means satisfactory), to the hearers of John at this time such an allusion must have been as unintelligible as the inti mations of Jesus about his future sufferings to his disciples. Indeed, if understood by John himself in its full sense, it is difficult to reconcile it with the more imperfect views of the Messiah evinced by his doubt during his imprisonment. To the Jews in general it can have conveyed no distinct meaning. That the Messiah was to be blameless, was strictly accordant with their notions, and "his taking away sins," bore an intelligible Jewish sense; but taking them away by his own sacrifice, was a III. and innocent as the meek animals that passed, like CHAP. them he was to go up as a sacrifice to Jerusalem, and in some mysterious manner to "take away the sins of mankind. Another title, by which he designated Jesus yet more distinctly as the Messiah, was that of the "Son of God," one of the appellations of the Deliverer most universally admitted, though, no doubt, it might bear a different sense to different hearers. Among the more immediate disciples of John this declaration of their master could not but excite the strongest emotions; nor can anything be more characteristic of the feelings of that class among the Jews than the anxious rapidity with which the wonderful intelligence is propagated, and the distant and awe-struck reverence with which the disciples slowly present themselves to their new master. The first of these were, Andrew, the bro- First disther of Simon (Peter), and probably the author of Siples of the narrative, St. John.* Simon, to whom his brother communicates the extraordinary tidings, immediately follows, and on him Jesus bestows a new name, expressive of the firmness of his character. purely Christian tenet, and but obscurely and prophetically alluded to before the death of Christ. How far the Jews had any notion of a suffering Messiah (afterwards their great stumbling-block) is a most obscure question. The Chaldaic paraphrast certainly refers, but in very vague and contradictory language (Isaiah, lii. 13. et seq.), to the Messiah. See on one side Schoetgen, Hor. Heb. ii. 181. and Dan. zius, de Aurp, in Meuschen; on the other, Rosenmuller and Gesenius Jesus. |