By Johann Peter Lange
Edited by Rev. Marcus Dods
THE HISTORICAL DELINEATION OF THE LIFE OF JESUS.
THE PUBLIC APPEARANCE AND ENTHUSIASTIC RECEPTION OF CHRIST
Section XVII
the Baptist's embassy
(Mat 11:1-19. Luk 7:18-35)
We have already above
established the point in a
general way, that the return of
Jesus from Judea to Galilee,
which John mentions in the 4th
chapter, forms one and the same
fact with the first public
appearance of Jesus in Galilee
spoken of by the synoptists (Mat
4:12; Mar 1:14; Luk 4:14). But
we may now convince ourselves of
the correctness of this fact by
the way in which the events
related fall in with this view.
We saw the Redeemer travelling
about the country in the first
free play of an activity which
as yet suffered in the main no
impediment. As yet, the
hierarchy has not openly
declared itself against Him;
although everywhere the conflict
with the spirit of the hierarchy
was already beginning to unfold
itself. All this is changed on
His appearance at the feast of
Purim in the year 782 (according
to John 5) Henceforth
hierarchial persecution pursues
Him closely everywhere, and His
position with reference to
public life, His whole system of
working, assumes of necessity a
different character. After this
decisive moment, the course of
the events hitherto related in
the Gospels, in the way in which
He has unfolded Himself before
our eyes, could no longer have
fashioned itself in the same
manner. Also, the period of time
from the feast of Purim to the
feast of Tabernacles of the year
782 would seem too short to
embrace the earlier Galilean
events as well as the later.
Since therefore the return of
Jesus to Galilee at the close of
the autumn of 781 has been
described by the synoptic
Evangelists as occasioned by the
imprisonment of the Baptist, we
shall assume that this event
must have taken place just about
that time.
Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of
Galilee and Perea, had not
inherited from his father, Herod
the Great, the strength of mind
which had made the latter so
conspicuous as despot and as
ruler. He was weak and fickle,
and his yielding softness was
liable to show itself in various
ways; sometimes in a slavish
disposition towards stronger
minds who governed him,
sometimes in a kind of
susceptibility for the voice of
Truth. Yet he was ruled entirely
by the spirit of levity and
extreme dissipation, and, like
his father, he was capable of
the worst crimes. He had married
the daughter of Aretas, the king
of Arabia; but afterwards he
formed a connection with
Herodias, the wife of his
half-brother Herod (Philip), who
lived as a private man; and the
daughter of the Arabian king
took refuge in her own country.
Herodias sufficiently shows her
character in the history of the
Baptist. She displayed in a
wrong direction greater
determination and strength of
mind than her husband. Yet with
the same strength she followed
him in trouble, when afterwards
he failed in his attempt, at her
instigation, to gain at Rome the
dignity of king, and when he was
banished to Gaul. Herod resided
in Tiberias, and perhaps during
the summer-time at Julias or
Livias in Perea, not far from
the fortress of Machזrus.1 So
that even when John was
baptizing in Enon, he had been
near to the residence of this
prince, which was in the city of
Tiberias, and it would seem that
afterwards he entered the
Galilean territory. It might
have been now that, seized by
one of those royal humours which
so often possessed him, namely,
a state of mind made up of
superstitious excitement and
passionate curiosity, Herod sent
to call the Baptist. This
circumstance might have
occasioned the Baptist’s giving
him the rebuke which led to his
death. John treated him
according to the same rule by
which he had judged the elders
from Jerusalem when they had
publicly confronted him. But
Herod did not allow this candour
to pass unpunished; he sent his
servants to seize him and cast
him into prison.
Regardless of consequences, John
had rebuked him for the
adulterous connection which he
had formed with Herodias, her
lawful husband being yet alive.
But he had also, as Luke remarks
(3:19), reproached him in
general for all his notorious
offences. This last remark of
Luke’s is of great importance
for the Baptist’s history; for
it is calculated to explain a
difference which exists between
the Evangelist and the historian
Josephus. Josephus relates that
Herod put the Baptist out of the
way from fear, lest he should
cause a rising or disturbance
amongst the people.2 But the
Evangelists assign that sentence
of condemnation which the
Baptist passed upon the relation
of this prince to Herodias as
the real motive which led to the
Baptist’s persecution, and
especially to his execution. But
now the above-mentioned remark
of Luke’s manifestly indicates
to us the connection or the
common meaning of the two
accounts. The Baptist, namely,
rebuked Herod for the public
scandals in general which he had
been guilty of. Thereby,
considered from a political
point of view, he appeared to
the despot to be on the road to
stirring up rebellion: he
imprisoned him therefore, as
being a dangerous demagogue, and
secured him within the
above-mentioned fortress, which
was situated in a sequestered
part of the country. And when in
course of time the prisoner was
executed, it was natural that
the political historian of that
time should bring prominently
forward that political motive of
despotic precaution. The
disciples, on the contrary, had,
no doubt, a more exact knowledge
of what was most truly the
motive which led Herod thus to
act: they fixed their eyes upon
that fatal point in the
reproving words of the Baptist,
which, relating more to
religious morals than to
politics, proved of such
disastrous consequences,
becoming the decisive cause of
his imprisonment and execution.
The Baptist had passed a whole
dreary winter shut up in the
lonely fortress.3 And here we
must remind ourselves of the
fact, that the greatest heroes
of the Old Covenant were much
weaker in holy endurance than in
holy action. Endurance often
fell the heaviest upon those who
were the strongest in zeal.
Think of Elijah’s frame of mind
when, fleeing from Jezebel, he
hid in the cave of Mount Horeb
(1 Kings 19). At that time even
Elijah might almost have asked,
Art Thou Jehovah that should
come? At that time he too needed
to receive an impression through
the still small voice of that
divine, world-subduing Spirit,
which was afterwards revealed to
the Baptist in the Lamb of God.
This lies in the very nature of
the Old Covenant. The prophet,
as the champion of the law, is a
Moses heightened; he can
lighten, thunder, call down fire
from heaven. The prophet, as an
announcer of the Gospel, is only
a forerunner of Christ;
therefore he is only one who is
becoming a Christian as
concerning the New Testament
power of enduring; and in this
sense especially, the least in
the kingdom of heaven is greater
than he.
This relation of the prophetical
to the New Testament spirit has
hardly been sufficiently taken
into account in the surprise,
which men have in various ways
expressed, at John’s message to
Jesus. And yet this must be
brought most prominently forward
if we would wish to explain this
message. But let us first of all
turn our eyes upon the fact
itself, which has in such
various ways been the cause of
offence. At this time, when
Jesus had left Capernaum, and as
the Saviour and Proclaimer of
salvation was passing through
the towns and villages which lay
in the way to Jerusalem,
apparently as He was just
leaving the towns on the
sea-shore, at any rate when He
had already accomplished a
succession of fresh miracles, He
received an embassy from the
imprisoned Baptist. There came
two of his disciples; and in the
name of the Baptist they
inquired, ‘Art Thou He that
should come, or are we to look
for another?’
How strange does this word sound
as a message from the man who
some time before had pointed out
Jesus to his disciples with the
announcement, Behold the Lamb of
God, which beareth the sin of
the world!—he who had in general
borne witness concerning Him in
the certainty inspired by the
Divine Spirit!
It is well known that men have
sought to free the Baptist from
the charge of weakness, or even
the Gospel history from the
appearance of a contradiction,
by supposing that John had no
need on his own account to
address this question to Christ;
but that it was his aim through
this mission to put his
disciples, who as yet were
doubtful of Jesus’ dignity, in
connection with Him, hoping by
this means to help them on to
full belief in Him.4
But against this it has been
with justice remarked, that the
disciples bring the message in
John’s name (according to Luke,
they even introduce John as
himself speaking); and that the
answer which Jesus gives them is
just as formally given as an
answer for John.5
But if it follows from this that
we must really consider the
question as coming from the very
heart of the Baptist himself,
then it is indisputably an
utterance which exhibits a human
weakness, an obscuration of his
faith. It shows a beclouded
state of mind in the Baptist.
But first comes the question,
What right have we to think
this? And then, How is it to be
explained? Now, on the one hand,
it is surely apparent that his
message cannot be considered as
a real wavering in his
theoretical conviction of the
Messianic dignity of Jesus. For
such a doubting of the authority
of Jesus must have led the
Baptist to an inquiry or an
examination, in which he could
not possibly have applied to
Jesus Himself. He could surely
never have expected that Jesus
would give him an answer which
should strengthen him in his
doubt. But, on the other hand,
we cannot either suppose that
the abrupt question, as the
Evangelists represent it, should
have had a different purport
originally; some such an one as
Schleiermacher supposes:6 ‘Thou
art surely He that should come?
Why then should we yet wait for
another?’ Neither yet can we
say, for example, that the
Baptist was only impelled by an
impatient longing, and that he
meant to call upon the Messiah,
who seemed to him to be
tarrying, to enter at once upon
‘that decisive conflict with the
prevailing depravity from which
He should come forth victorious,
and which should issue in the
purification and glorification
of the theocracy.’ We imagine
the Baptist’s state of mind as
being more depressed, more
uncertain, more gloomy; not
merely a state of earnest
longing and of great impatience,
but also that of deep vexation;
vexation, namely, at the
apparent triumph of evil under
the very eyes of the Messiah
Himself; vexation which, though
it did not make him concerned
about his liberation on its own
account, yet caused his
imprisonment to appear as a sign
of that triumph of evil. This
feeling of vexation must be
carefully distinguished from a
theoretical change of opinion,
though it certainly could not
but have operated to dim the
clearness of John’s conviction
of Jesus being the Messiah. Thus
even now Christ was still to the
Baptist the Lamb of God as much
as when he had thus designated
Him in that brightest moment of
his life. Perhaps now He seemed
to him to be even too much so.
Let us just class this word of
the Baptist’s with similar
expressions7 of Moses, of Job,
of Elijah, of Jeremiah, and of
Christ; perhaps doing so may
help us to the right
understanding of them.
Concerning Job in that moment
when he cursed his birth, and
also the Lamentations of
Jeremiah, one might perhaps be
inclined to make the objection,
that there we have to do with
poetical passages, which as such
are not fitted to afford any
analogies to what is real. Only,
if these passages are rightly
estimated, they almost gain a
greater significance than the
others, by showing what frames
of mind are possible for the
servants of God in similar or
like situations in all ages. But
when now Moses at one time
exhibits before the Lord his
deep vexation, Job his despair,
Elijah his suppressed bitter
jealousy, Jeremiah his awful
trembling under the fearful
severity of God,—in all these
cases, there of course could not
have been the remotest thought
of any theoretical doubt of the
existence of God. They
remonstrate with their God,
because He is to them a living,
personal God, and because they
stand in a real, living relation
towards Him, although without
being either holy or perfect.
They are too faithful and pious
to forsake God; but they are
also too violently agitated by
the awfulness of His dealings
not to exhibit to Him their
bleeding, wailing heart, ay,
even their surprise as at
something strange. In the
expressions which they use,
whatever is not prayer is
confession. Just because they
have no desire to forsake God,
they dare to show themselves to
Him as they are. It was in the
perfect openness of their piety
that the Old Testament heroes
came in their hours of deepest
trial to contend with their
God—and this according to the
whole character of the Old
Testament, because they are
arrived at the point when they
can no longer understand their
fate from God’s justice, as they
understand His justice. The
glorification of these moods of
feeling we find in the moment
when Christ cried out on the
cross: My God, My God, why hast
Thou forsaken Me? It would
clearly be unspeakably foolish
if we attempted to see in this
expression any theoretical doubt
in the Godhead. But we see in it
the whole feeling of Christ.
With His heart’s whole feeling
of what was right stirred up
within Him, Christ asks God why
He had forsaken Him. But He asks
His God; and there we at once
see the answer, that it was
necessary that He should feel so
forsaken, and also the assurance
that God would explain the why
through the great reward of this
forsakenness in the salvation of
the world. This mighty Why of
Christ’s points, then, to an
answer of God, which is unfolded
in His glorification and in the
redemption of the world. Now the
Baptist’s present state of mind,
from which the above question
arose, evidently belongs to the
same line of the deepest trials
of God’s heroes,—a line
extending from the life of
Abraham and of Moses up to the
life of Christ,—of those trials
which are still prepared for
every servant of God according
to the measure of his strength.
Now it was impossible for the
weakness of John to display
itself without the admixture of
sinful infirmity. No doubt his
was a state of mind in which he
also bewailed his distress to
his God with the keenest
sensibility and with the
liveliest expressions. But under
this state of mind he turns to
the Messiah, because his state
of mind has reference to the
Messiah; because, with the
sorrow and wrath which as
prophet he felt, he cannot
understand how Jesus should so
graciously devote Himself to the
outcast among the people, whilst
the rulers of the people are practising the grossest deeds of
violence and meet with no
punishment. We will not seek to
probe further into the Baptist’s
state of mind. So much is clear,
that this utterance of his
indicates the moment of the
heaviest trial of his life, and
also of his human weakness under
this trial. But we should miss
an essential trait in his
portraiture if this spot of
weakness were wanting, the
moment of his human quailing
under God’s providence,—that
moment of the highest exaltation
of God’s majesty in the life of
His servants, when they sink
into His arms as it were
fainting under the inscrutable
judgment of their life. But in
the life of a man like John this
shock could not fail to be
great, and to force a strong
expression of itself according
to the measure of the greatness
of the man himself.
But it is altogether wrong to
imagine that for the explanation
of this fact we must turn to
those cases in history in which
great men succumbed for a moment
under their appointed trial, as,
for example, Jerome of Prague,
when he denied his evangelical
creed. Therefore Strauss’s
observation likewise hits wide
of the mark, when he says:
‘Persecuted Christians of the
first centuries, and later a
Berengarius and a Galileo,
turned false to those very
convictions on account of which
they were imprisoned, hoping
through their denial to save
themselves: the Baptist, in
order that his case should admit
to be compared with theirs,
ought to have retracted his
rebuke of Herod instead of
giving a wavering character to
his testimony concerning Christ,
which had nothing whatever to do
with his imprisonment.’8 Here it
is assumed that the Baptist’s
embassy, when brought into
connection with his earlier
testimonies of Christ, as they
are represented by the
Evangelists, make him appear as
a fallen man. But there is not
the remotest thought of this in
the description which they gave
of this embassy. Nay, it was
even through this very embassy
that he escapes the danger of
taking offence at Christ. As the
servants of God, under their
great temptations and shocks, do
not turn themselves in their
anguish to the world, but to
their God; as they open before
Him their deeply wounded heart,
and by the very means of thus
crying out to Him, even though
impure elements are evolved in
the manner in which they do
this, they become quieted,
comforted, and saved; so it is
also with John. And this is
proved by his message to Jesus.
If he had nourished as rancour
in his heart the discouragement
which he felt on account of
Jesus’s manner of working, it
might then have caused his fall.
But this the Spirit’s
consecration and the divine
tendency of this quailing soul
would not admit of. He gave
shape to his discouragement in
free, unreserved expression.
Before all the people this great
herald contended with his great
King, because he would not, and
he dared not, take with him to
the grave, without giving
expression to it, this feeling
which had contended with him in
his prison. Before all the
people he had once borne witness
to Him; therefore it was
necessary that his relation to
Him should continue to be open
and clear in the sight of all
the people. He ventured before
the people to question His Messiahship; and this
undoubtedly shows how beclouded
and how agitated his state of
mind was. In Luther’s life we
find similar moods of feeling.
Such in particular we find given
outward expression to, during
the time when he was imprisoned
in the castle of Wartburg. Blücher
was for a long time half
delirious with vexation during
the time of Prussia’s
humiliation, and he then
expressed the wish: ‘I would
that either war would arise, or
that the whole world were in one
great blaze of fire.’ It is in
the nature of things that
imprisoned lions should now and
then, in moments of deep
vexation, begin to roar. But we
should also not forget that John
publicly submitted both his
question and his own self to the
final decision of Jesus. And
this is just the
much-misunderstood light side of
his message: his abrupt reproach
was at the same time his heroic
confession of fault. The strong
man in his great conflict clung
publicly to the Stronger, and
thus saved the close of his
life.
If then we have made ourselves
acquainted with the meaning of
the Baptist’s message, there are
still other considerations to
bring forward which are
calculated yet further to throw
light upon his state of mind.
With reference to the right
estimation of the life of
Christ, as viewed in the
peculiarity of its New Testament
spirit, John, we must grant,
stood highest among all the men
who stood on the Old Testament
footing. In this respect, among
those born of women, none was
greater than he.9 As he was the
last of the prophets, so he
stood the highest, the nearest
to Christ, of all on the Old
Testament footing. But the
peculiar course of Christ’s
life, His spiritual life most
emphatically His own,—namely,
that He should lay the
foundation of His work through
love, through planting the truth
in individual minds, through
workings of the Spirit, through
suffering and death, and not
through severity, through
judgments, through outward
enterprises, struggles, and
victories,0151this was what the
least of those who stood on the
New Testament footing could
understand better than John.
Added to this, we must likewise
take into account the variation
in the mood of feeling
observable among the prophets.
That which may be said of the
human mind, and doubly so of the
pious mind, is true in a
threefold degree of the
prophet’s mind: it is capable of
being raised high as heaven, and
again of being plunged down to
death, even to the anguish of
hell. Now of the pious man this
is doubly true; because there
are moments when he can soar far
beyond the mountains, even up to
the bosom of God; and others
when, having sunk back into his
insulated consciousness, he
trembles before the smallest
trouble. But this applies in a
threefold degree to the prophet,
because the divine-human life
displays itself in his states of
feeling as a life developing
itself in a rhythmical movement
(so to speak) of arsis and
thesis. Therefore it follows,
that at one time he should be
able to gaze with rapt
inspiration into all the glory
of the new world, as if he had
already conquered all the
troubles of life; and then at
another time, that he should
fall into gloomy frames of mind,
in which he can hardly
understand what he himself had
in those states of inspiration
uttered.10 In this respect the
life of the apostle has an
unspeakable advantage over the
life of the prophet, even though
the life of the former likewise
exhibits considerable
weaknesses; for the apostle is
from the very first filled with
the spirit of that life of
Christ which was perfect in word
and deed. Now John the Baptist
is just the very last of the
prophets: why then should he be
wanting in that peculiarity
which so universally
characterizes the prophetic
life? It is true that Christ
places him even above the other
prophets, as being the pioneer
of the new dispensation; but
this very position of his, being
the last of the Old Covenant
prophets and the herald of the
New Covenant, was in itself the
cause that in him most
especially it might come to pass
that the New and the Old
Testament frames of mind should
succeed one another in the
strongest contrast. There were,
however, especial circumstances
tending to this result, which we
have already above referred to.
His disciples, for example, had
at first surrounded the camp of
Jesus, so to speak, with jealous
watchfulness and with passionate
hope, and they had then returned
to the Baptist with the
intelligence that Jesus was now
feasting with publicans and
sinners. We can easily
understand how these reports of
John’s disciples, and their
feelings of annoyance, would
naturally contribute to heighten
his gloomy state of mind. This
report might have raised in his
soul the apprehension lest Jesus
should not carry out that
separation between the clean and
the unclean, between the
subjects of the kingdom and its
adversaries, of which he had
laid the foundation through his
baptism; rather Jesus was
pulling down what he had built,
instead of continuing to build
on the foundation which he had
laid.11 And this makes it obvious
to us to conjecture, that this
tempted one was hoping to obtain
from Christ’s answer a
comforting explanation not
merely for himself, but also for
his disciples.
Commentators have been so busy
with the Baptist’s message, that
often the Lord’s answer has not
been sufficiently considered.
And yet this supplies us with
the clearest and most delicate
estimate of that message. They
have only to go and report to
John what they themselves have
seen and heard, the evidences
which He afforded of His
character. And in these signs
John would find it impossible to
mistake the prophetic
description of the Messiah. Now
were the eyes of the blind
opened through Him; now were
seen lame men healed and leaping
as harts; now were the ears of
the deaf unstopped, and the dumb
were beginning to praise God,
according to Isaiah’s prophecy
(35:5, 6ff.); now were the
people cleansed from their
iniquities, and the dead were
living again, according to
Ezekiel’s prophecies (36 and
37);—but the greatest thing of
all, the culminating point of
all those works of wonder, was
this, that now good tidings were
preached to the poor, the
jubilee year of salvation,
according to Isaiah’s
announcement in chap. 61, and
other prophetical passages,
which speak of the wonderful
consolations which during the
Messianic time should console
and make happy the miserable.
The order and manner in which
Jesus enumerates these signs of
His evangelical operations, in
which were reflected the
prophetical signs of the
Messianic blessing, seem to be
founded on a distinct progress
of healing and saving works in
the removal of life’s evils,
from the smallest to the
heaviest of all. First the blind
are named. They stand as
expectant sound ones, wanting
only light, before the curtain
of life; these see again. Next
the lame. In their case even the
free motions of life are
wanting; they walk again. Then
come the lepers. With them life
itself is tainted by a dangerous
element of death; these become
clean. The deaf appear to be
placed here somewhat too low;
but many of them are not only
physically but mentally bound,
so that they do but vegetate:
with their hearing, mental
existence is likewise restored
to them. Next come the dead;
they return to life. In the
simply sublime character of
these antitheses, ‘the blind
receive their sight,’ &c., the
evangelical working of Christ is
set forth as a new creation. In
this answer of Jesus lay a
threefold power of comfort;
quite apart from the striking
consideration that Isaiah had
already uttered that message
respecting the coming Helper-God
with especial reference to the
weak hands, the feeble knees,
the fearful hearts. For, in the
first place, the Baptist could
not fail to recognize in these
features the power of the
manifestation of God, the power
of the mighty Saviour of the
people rescuing men from their
miseries. The complete
concurrence of the signs, their
combined effort, the Messiah
passing from bodily to spiritual
deliverances, and their
connection with one another,
left no doubt of Jesus being the
Bringer and the Bearer of the
time of salvation. But the
second ground of satisfaction
the Baptist was to find in this,
that it was by these very signs
that the prophets had signalized
the Messiah. Finally, the third
was in this, that even those
theocrats of a much earlier time
had proclaimed the Messianic
kingdom as being most
prominently a kingdom of mercy,
of deliverances, and not so much
a kingdom of legal distinction
and separation, of retribution
and of judgment.
The addition, ‘And blessed is
he, whosoever shall not be
offended in Me,’ is Jesus’ last
word to John. It shows that
Jesus perceived that John really
was in danger of being tempted;
but, at the same time, that He
knew him to be rescued. The Lord
utters no woe over him who
should be offended in Him, but
He pronounces blessed him who
should be preserved from this
peril. This praising as Blessed
is no doubt meant for John
himself. For Jesus knew His man,
and knew how the message would
affect him. But by this word
John was also seasonably
reminded of a prophetic passage
which announces that the Messiah
will become a stone of stumbling
and a rock of offence to many (Isa
8:14); and the recollection of
this may have very much helped
him to set himself right
concerning his true relation to
Jesus, and with a composed soul,
as the herald of the Lamb of
God, to go quietly and silently
to that death of his, in which
he likewise was to show himself
His forerunner.
When the disciples of John were
departed with Christ’s answer,
the heavenly superiority of
Christ over this vehement man
came out still more strongly.
The Baptist had taken offence at
Christ’s course of life, but the
violent shock of public offence
which John had given Him in his
ungentle strength did not in the
least disconcert the Lord. He
felt more that the Baptist had
done himself harm with the
people, than that he had injured
Him. Therefore He took John’s
reputation under His protection,
so to say, against his own
message, by beginning to extol
him for the real strength which
he had exhibited, and for his
true worth. In this encomium we
again recognize the Master of
souls, the King of the most
mighty of men. ‘What went ye out
into the wilderness to see?’ He
said to the people. ‘A reed
shaken with the wind?’ The
people had not gone from any
curiosity to see, we will say,
the reeds by the Jordan waving
in the wind. No such frail
object as this draws the people.
They had been overpowered by the
strong, iron-hearted character
of the Baptist. And now that
John really appeared to be
wavering, the people were to
remember that impression, and
instead of being unjust enough
to see in him a reed shaken at
the mercy of the wind, to
consider him rather as a cedar
shaken by the storm. Neither
were they to believe that John
fluctuated to and fro in his
testimony concerning Christ, but
they were to trust the solemn
declaration spoken by the strong
man in his strength. Then again
the second time we read: ‘What
went ye out for to see? A man
clothed in soft raiment?’ And He
adds: ‘Behold, they that wear
soft clothing,’ men of luxury,
‘are in kings’ houses.’ They had
surely seen that the Baptist in
the wilderness, out of his own
free choice, had worn a garment
of camel’s hair, and was girded
with a leathern girdle.
Therefore they need not fear now
that he would be unfaithful to
his vocation as witness of the
truth, when languishing in
Herod’s prison. If he had the
soft, weak mind from which the
flatterer grows, he would surely
be decked with soft clothing in
the king’s house; but with his
strong heroic soul he will
unflinchingly remain in his
rough clothing in the king’s
prison: he will show that he is
equal to his destiny.12 As
speaking to the multitude who so
easily become violently aroused,
He prudently speaks in general
terms of people in kings’
houses, to whom John forms a
striking contrast. Thus with His
first word He set the people at
rest concerning the strength and
consistency of the Baptist, and
the reliableness of his
testimony; with His second word,
concerning the hardship of his
fate, the inevitableness, ay,
the necessity of his present
condition. Then for the third
time He asks, ‘What went ye out
for to see? A prophet?’ And He
answers: ‘Yea, I say unto you,
and more than a prophet.’ And
how far more? Jesus now explains
to the people that John is the
messenger of the Lord of whom
the prophet prophesies (Mal
3:1), who goes before the coming
Lord to prepare the way, and
that among all that are born of
women there is none greater than
he, the Baptist.
Thus therefore the Baptist was
distinguished above all the
prophets through his peculiar
position in the kingdom of God:
he closed up the old, he
announced the new dispensation;
he practically set forth the
revelations which were given him
with the most faithful energy in
outward action, by rebuking the
people, and consecrating them
for the kingdom of heaven
through the ordinance of
baptism. Just as Moses became
the lawgiver or legal
establisher of the patriarchial
development of the theocracy, so
John in his spirit and office
comprised the whole prophetic
development of the theocracy in
practical activity. But when
Jesus extolled him as the most
eminent among those born of
women (those not yet born again
through the New Testament
baptism into Christ’s death), He
added yet the declaration:
‘Notwithstanding’ (in a
spiritual point of view) ‘he
that is least in the kingdom of
heaven is greater than he.’
With these last announcements
Jesus had clearly explained to
the people the Baptist’s precise
mission; that, namely, of
announcing the Messiah. In so
doing, He had at the same time
made it sufficiently clear to
all that the Messiah had
appeared, and that Himself was
He. The last word ought also to
have given His hearers the clue
to understand how it was that
the Baptist was not perfectly
able already to understand
Himself.
But now Jesus considered it
necessary to come back with an
explanation to that word of His
which placed the Baptist above
the prophets. Until John13—thus
He explains Himself—all the
prophets, as also the law,
stood, so far as related to the
kingdom of God, in the domain of
prophecy. They set forth this
kingdom as a future kingdom. But
since John’s appearance that was
changed. From his days up to
this moment the kingdom of
heaven continues in powerful,
living activity, violently
forcing its way, on the road to
perfect mastery. Now it is drawn
forth with violence from its
hidden depth, and the theocratic
violent ones, the holy doers of
violence, actually in reality
draw it in; they obtain it, they
have it.14 In this respect,
Christ adds, ye may consider
John as the first forerunning
violent one, as the Elijah whom
the prophet has designated as
the forerunner of the Messiah
(Mal 4:5). ‘He that hath ears to
hear, let him hear!’ we finally
read; that means, the other and
mightier Violent One do ye now
find out and acknowledge.
Now it struck the Lord with a
feeling of pain to reflect how
much they both, the pioneer and
the Establisher of the kingdom
of heaven, were misunderstood by
the people; so He gave His
hearers a solemn rebuke on this
subject in the form of a
parable: ‘Whereunto shall I
liken this generation? Unto
children sitting in the market.
They call out to their fellows,
We have piped unto you, and ye
have not danced! We have mourned
unto you, and ye have not wept!’
We must carefully observe that
these are capricious children
who are here represented, who in
one and the same moment want to
play with their fellows now at a
wedding, now at a mourning, and
who complain that their fellows
will not join in the game. Under
this figure the race of that
time appears to be represented
in its behaviour towards the
Baptist and Christ; or it also
exhibits the way in which every
age lectures its prophets,
namely, with a supreme
inconsistency, which forgets its
own words. This inconsistency
appears to be the very point of
the parable. Thus the ‘children’
who wished the prophets to dance
to their piping, would fain
strike up for John to follow a
cheerful wedding tune, whilst he
was calling the people to rites
of mourning; and then
immediately in the same breath
they wanted the Lord to follow
them in a funeral dirge, whilst
He desired to summon the people
to the cheerful marriage-feast
of New Testament liberty.15 The
former appeared neither eating
nor drinking; he represented in
his strict abstemiousness the
very deepest earnestness of
life. And although the people
were moved by the power of his
spirit, yet they gradually
exclaimed: He is too severe for
us, too gloomy; and at length
most of them turned away from
him with the excuse, that he was
possessed by a demon of
melancholy. The latter came
eating and drinking; freely and
with devoted love He shared in
their feastings. But then they
cried, arid with devoted
love He shared in their
feastings. But then they cried,
Behold a man gluttonous and a
winebibber, a friend of
publicans and sinnersʼ—the
spirit of Pharisaism
anathematized Him as one who set
Himself above all law. And so
they gave Him up likewise. In this sketch Jesus has drawn the chief difficulties which the preaching of the kingdom of heaven always meets with in the world. The preaching of the law men find too solemn, too superhuman, destroying all life’s cheerfulness; in the preaching of the atonement they find a favouring of levity, of sin.16 And the messengers of God, whose office it is to call the world to the proper seasons of mourning and of feasting, must always be content to bear being rejected by the world’s criticism. But this melancholy experience is only a qualified one. Some there always are who receive the heavenly wisdom which they set forth, and become children of their spirit. And these children of wisdom have always made themselves answerable for her, and have maintained and justified her claims and her righteousness by their word and life. The children of wisdom make themselves answerable for her claims, as children for their mother.17 That was a critical moment in which Jesus spoke these words to the people. John, in his weakness, had endangered by his message both Christ’s reputation with the people and his own. he people might now have been tempted passionately to take up the Baptist’s question and go on with assaulting the authority of Jesus, or else passionately to declare themselves on Jesus’ side in order to blame the Baptist; or they might even have begun to go all wrong concerning both prophets. ‘This error of the Baptist’s Jesus remedies; indeed, He even makes use of this opportunity clearly to explain to the people the difference between the Baptist’s position and His own, and the higher unity of the two positions in the establishing of the kingdom of heaven ; and then He proceeds to show them how wrongly they had acted, first towards the Baptist, and then towards Him. Thus the most perfect policy could not have given a better turn to the occurrence; here, however, this wisdom was the policy of the Prince of the kingdom of heaven, which is in perfect unity with holiness and love. ───♦─── Notes 1. Wieseler, in his Chronological Synopsis, places the date of the Baptist’s imprisonment in March of the year 782 U.C. (p. 223.) But this is done upon the incorrect supposition already referred to with respect to that return of Jesus to Galilee, with which the synoptists link the imprisonment of the Baptist. Further on Wieseler rests this view upon the supposition of an exact chronological succession of events in the synoptists, particularly in Luke, and finds especially in the σάββατον δευτερὸπρωτον in Luke 6:1 his authority for supposing that this said return of Jesus to Galilee, and consequently also the imprisonment of the Baptist, must have taken place about this time. But we have only to consider the intermixture of the several series of events to make us abstain from insisting upon this chronological order in these Gospels ; and in respect to Luke in particular, it is plain enough that in his narration he did not aim at a purely objective arrangement. With reference to this, let us compare, for example, the position of the story of the centurion at Capernaum with the position of the Sermon on the Mount. Next, Wieseler adduces proofs from profane history. First he finds out (p. 241) that Agrippa I. came to Palestine either in the autumn of A.D. 31 (784), or in the spring of the following year, and that he found Herodias already married to Herod. From this we only arrive at the indeterminate date of the marriage happening before this time. But it required at the same time to be proved that it took place after A.D. 28. This then Wieseler tries to establish in the following manner:—According to Josephus, Antig. 18, 5, 1, Herod first formed the plan of his union with Herodias whilst on a business journey to Rome. But this journey, Wieseler says, could not have happened before the year 29. For in this year, so we are told, the old Empress Livia, the mother of Tiberius, died ; and Herod probably made this journey to Rome on a visit of condolence, in order to make an opportunity of gaining some advantages for himself. Now this supposition has surely nothing convincing in it. Such a man as Herod would not wait for such a particularly special event, in order to make interest for himself in Rome. And it is also very much to be questioned whether with a man like Tiberius it would have been at all politic to make use of an occasion of condolence in order to compass private ends of his own. One rather gets out of the way of mourning tyrants. Thus Agrippa also was obliged to leave Rome, because, as being the former friend of the Emperor’s son Drusus, who was poisoned by Sejanus, he reminded Tiberius of his death. Besides, it is alleged that at a later period Agrippa I. accused Herod to Caligula of having been guilty of conspiring with Sejanus against Tiberius’ government. From this also it is to follow, that Herod’s journey was subsequent to the death of Livia, because it was only from that time that Sejanus rose to importance, and ‘because the alleged conspiracy could hardly have been formed, except, on the one hand, through personal intercourse, and, on the other hand, at a time when Sejanus was already enjoying great importance.’ But such an accusation as Agrippa brought against Herod before Caligula surely does not presuppose cither that Herod must have had personal intercourse with Sejanus in Rome, or that it must have taken place after Sejanus’ elevation. If probabilities, or shows of probability, were wanted for that accusation, it would even be more probable that Herod would have then been able to confide in Sejanus in the manner alluded to, when the latter had not reached the height of his influence at the court of Tiberius, than later. Thus it is no way proved that the imprisonment of the Baptist could not have taken place till the year 782.18 2, It will be shown hereafter that Christ's lament over the Galilean cities is assigned by Luke to a more fitting oceasion than it is by Matthew; Luke connecting it with Jesus’ departure from Galilee. But so much must even here be said, that that lament was evidently uttered as a retrospect of His ministry in those parts after it was finished, whereas as yet Jesus was still carrying on His ministry in Capernaum and Bethisaida. 3. Some have thought it unlikely that John would have been allowed whilst in prison to hold intercourse with his disciples, and through them with the world. But in reply to this it has been with justice remarked, that in ancient times imprisonment did not infer a regular locking up of the prisoner, as in later times; and in favour of this has been urged the intercourse which Socrates whilst in prison held with his pupils, also Acts 24:23 and Matt. 25:36. See the passage above cited in Weisse, vol. i. p. 272. 4. That the Baptist was more than a prophet is shown by that great act of zeal for true religion in which he pronounced the nation unclean, and required it to submit to baptism, by which indirectly even Jesus was led to seek baptism at his hands. It should be remarked in addition to what we have before said on this subject, that our explanation of the baptism of Jesus is fully confirmed by the prophet Haggai, chap. ii. 12-15.
|
|
1) See Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse, p. 250. [Ewald (Christus, p. 194, note) quotes Seetzen as having found the ruins of Machĉrus on the north-east shore of the Dead Sea, above the Zerka ; but from Robinson’s remarks (i. 570) it seems that Seetzen did not himself visit, but only heard of a ruined fortress called Mkauer,—ED.] 2) Antiquities, 18, 5, 2. 3) [Ewald thinks he had been in prison a whole year, p. 30. ED.] 4) This view [formerly advocated by Calvin] has recently been advanced by Stier, ii, 56 ff. [and with his usual ability by Alexander, in his Matthew Explained, p. 303.—ED.] 5) [Perhaps, however, Alford’s statement, that the disciples ‘are bona fide messengers and nothing more,’ is rather strong. Ewald (p. 351), with apparently greater accuracy, represents the disciples as themselves partly causing the message, by pressing John to say definitely whether they-should go over to Jesus. Ewald and Alford agree in thinking that there was more of impatience than of doubt in the message. Ewald, however, thinks that John not only desired Jesus to proclaim Himself as the Messiah, but expected Him to become a Messiah with more sensibly striking power and wider worldly influence than He seemed to be assuming.—ED.] 6) On Luke, p. 110. The whole construction put by Schleiermacher upon the message of John must be characterized as far-fetched and a failure. 7) Ex. xvii. 4; Job iii. 1; 1 Kings xix. 10; Lam. iii.; Matt, xxvii. 46. 8) Vol. i. p. 365. 9) Comp. Neander's Life of Jesus Christ, p. 214. 10) 1 Pet. i. 10, 11. The same is true of some of the productions of great poets. 11) Comp. Ebrard, p. 283. 12) See Stier on the passage. 13) The 13th verse in Matthew is to be taken as an explanation of the 12th verse. Hence we may also imagine this verse placed as an introduction before the 12th, in order that the meaning of the passage may come out more clearly. 14) According to the context, John and Jesus must be the βιασταί. For until their time the kingdom of heaven was a hidden kingdom, Israel’s ideal hope ; but with holy violence they drew it out from the depth of life into aetual manifestation, ‘'Therefore the period also is to be fixed thus: from John’s appearance up to this time in which Jesus is speaking, It also appears to be according to the connection of the passage to understand the βιάζεται passively, The kingdom of heaven is violently drawn forth to view. Under another point of view, it is, no doubt, the kingdom of heaven itself forcing its way amidst agonizing birth-throes. 15) Stier's explanation of this passage (ii. 14) had well-nigh forced me to give up my own earlier explanation of it in my Biblische Dichtungen, vol. ii., in favour of his, For Stier makes the piping for the marriage-feast refer to the ministry of Christ, and the dirge for the funeral to the ministry of John, Thus then would they themselves be compared to children who in vain desire to get up both a festival and a moaning. The comparison would then include the Baptist as well as the Lord Himself in the designation, this generation, Grotius reminds us on this passage of the parable of the Sower, which, he observes, represents the kingdom of heaven, and yet there the sower must also, of course, be included in the history of his seed, But yet here these piping and mourning children are too distinctly designated as the generation of that time, Added to this, the same children are represented as contradicting themselves, with peevish irresolution wanting to play now at a wedding, now at a funeral, thereby causing nothing to be done. Not children playing harmoniously and quietly are here represented, but excited children, irresolute and bewildered, having no call to do this piping or dirge-playing, who are spoiling their own play. But the Baptist’s and Christ’s way of acting did not correspond with this. The first continued his darkly solemn tune, and the other His brightly cheerful tune, even till death, Besides, the race which criticises both the men are in the parable very plainly identified with the complaining children. And what is especially to be remarked is, that the flute-players are here represented as coming before the mourners. If they were meant to refer to John and to Christ, the situation must be reversed, whereas it quite corresponds with the inconsistent behavior of the people. John found in the people a group of merry flute-players who wished to force him to join in merry dances. Christ found in the same people a choir of mourners who required of Him to set forth the victory of death in ascetic behaviour, or by joining with them in weeping and crying. 16) See Stier, ii. 98. 17) If we carefully regard the signification of the expression the children of wisdom, and the connection of this passage, we cannot be doubtful concerning its meaning. 18) [This is one of the most difficult points in the chronology of the Gospel history. Its determination depends upon data which themselves can scarcely be said to be ascertained. One of these is the date of our Lord’s leaving Judea and retiring to Galilee (John iv. 3); for at this time John was not yet cast into prison (John iii. 24), This may be called December 780. ‘The other date to be fixed is, of course, the earliest at which there is any notice of John’s being or having been in prison; and this is supposed to be found in John y. 35, where his ministry is spoken of as past. The words referred to were spoken at a feast of the Jews, though at what season is nob certain, Lichtenstein (p. 176) and Riggenbach (p. 408) agree in thinking that it was the feast of Tabernacles in September 781. This is corroborated by the fact, that before the Passover of 782 John was already beheaded (Matt. xiv. 13; Luke ix. 9; John vi. 4). Wieseler, as is acknowledged on all hands, allows too little time for the events which are known to have transpired during the imprisonment (Tischenilorf’s Synops, Evan. xxxiii, Pref.; Ellicott's Hist. Leet. p. 129, note ; and Andrews, Life of our Lord, p. 159). Lichtenstein has very elaborately discussed the events of profane history which are connected with the imprisonment of John, viz.,—the death of Philip, the war between Herod and Aretas, the journey of Antipas to Rome, and the marriage of Herodias’ daughter ; and he has shown that Wieseler has in profane history no ground for asserting that the imprisonment of the Baptist could not have taken place till 782 (Lebensgeschiehte, pp. 171-201).—ED.]
|