THE BAPTISM OF JESUS.

AN EXPOSITION OF MATTHEW III. 13-17.

PART FIRST.— Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.' In this introductory statement we have four points to consider; these are, period, person, place, and purpose. First, as to period, John had come the messenger of the Messiah-he had proclaimed repentance in view of the approaching Monarch and his reignhe had received the submission of multitudes of the people--he had baptized them in the Jordan confessing their sins he had warned his impenitent applicants against the consequences of their cherished delusions; and he had all but completed his ministry, for the next report of him is, that he was cast into prison. Not, therefore, till, as the harbinger, he had borne his testimony to the Messiah, but before that testimony was sealed by the blood of the witness, Jesus came. How truly appropriate, therefore, is the initial word of the narrative, Then cometh Jesus.' Second, as to person, we have before us Jesus and John. Here we find ourselves in the presence of highest nobility. Two ambassadors from the court of heaven met on business of the heavenly reign! No outward pomp, no glittering tinsel, no imposing parade, no proud retinue is there seen for sake of state and royalty. All this is dispensed with. Yet not less true and high is the dignity of the two unattended ministers of Jehovah, now face to face, Verily I say unto you, of those born of women, there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist,'-one excepted. 'John bare witness of Him, and cried, saying, This was He of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me, for he was before me;' And I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God.' Third, as to place, Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan. John baptized in the Jordan. He needed much water, as all do who really baptize. He found this in the Jordan and the Enon, and there he baptized, because there was much water there.' So Jesus came from Galilee. Seventy miles were no mean journey then. thousand now are as easy to us. To one who owned no means of transit, and who had no money to pay for any, though Lord of all, there necessarily was 'many a weary step in that journey, briefly expressed in the words, Then came Jesus from Galilee to Jordan.' Fourth, as to purpose, it was to be baptized of John. Such was the one object. To obey

6

A

the heaven appointed ordinance, as observed by the divinely commissioned administrator, was an act all-worthy of him whose meat and drink it was to do the will of his Father in heaven. O Jesus! thou meek and lowly examplar of submission to Jehovah's good pleasure, may thine example, thus recorded, lead all who fondly call thee Lord, to follow in thy footsteps!

PART SECOND.-' But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus, answering, said unto him, suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.' Two elements of character, all-pleasing to God, are blended together in this matchless scene. Need we specify them as humility and fidelity? Conscious of his inferiority to him who sought to be immersed, John felt that, as for need, Jesus should rather baptize him than he Jesus. How well, therefore, he spoke the truth, when he said to the holy One, 'I have need;" and how true the inference thence conveyed, that he to whom he spake had none? But this disciple-like humility gave place only to filial duty. True and striking as was the humility of his messenger, Jesus yet out-distanced him, for, in his answer, he still retained the suitor's place. He appealed, he submitted the case. He might have commanded compliance, but No. He found in John his Father's accredited servant, and though he was but a servant, and himself the Son, his answer was, 'Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.' How wondrously expressive is every word of this reply. Not merely the opening thought, wherein, as it were, Jesus asks permission of John, submits it to him, requests him to allow it to be so. But, next, the word now, acknowledging, as it does so plainly, that though the Father's Son and Heir, yet was he then learning obedience by the things which he was called to endure; but that there was a future, when his piety should have its due reward. Then, next, the word thus, Thus it becometh us,' thus unhesitatingly, thus readily, thus practically, to fulfil all righteousness. Then, also, the plural pronoun us. Not merely that such obedience became Jesus, but that it equally becomes all those whom he is not ashamed 'to call his brethren. assumes a common relationship with his people here. would that they should be one with him, even as He and the Father are one. And here we may notice, too, how appropriate the becometh is in such a connexion. Who that knows the

He

He

6

Lord, and thinks of the relationship here expressed, and is aware of the allusion of the words, thus it becometh us,' is not prepared to let his 'glad obedience prove how much he owes, how much he loves.' Next, there is the word fulfil, significantly expressive, that nought that is right is to be left undone, unimplemented, unratified; and, lastly, the words all righteousness; not certainly as teaching, that the ordinance in question comprehended all righteousness, but that it stood included in the all-righteousness required by God; and, therefore, was not to be set aside by any argument, even the most pious, that man could suggest. What more pious argument could ever be offered, why one of the children of God should not be baptized, than that employed by John with reference to Jesus? But how overwhelmingly ample was the Saviour's reply; and how delightful the docility and faithfulness of John, which at once placed the finger of silence on his lips, led to his immediate submission to the teaching of the Master, and procured for him that honourable mention in the records of eternal truth, expressed in the simple line, 'Then he suffered him.'

PART THIRD.-' And 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; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' We here observe, that nothing intervened between the colloquy just concluded, and the Messiah's immersion. The fact that he was immersed, comes clearly out in the statement, that when baptized, he went up straightway out of the water. No language could more accurately describe the rising to an erect posture, and the leaving of the water. Meanwhile, three significant facts occur simultaneously above, all of which bear specific reference to the now baptized Messiah. To him the heavens are opened; upon him the Spirit, dovelike, descends; and of him the heavenly Father's voice exclaims, 'This is my Son, the beloved in whom I delight.' How rich is the reward of filial obedience! How true the word divine, 'Him that honoureth me I will honour.' Must not that moment have been to Jesus a full recompense for the long wandering that he had, ere he reached the Jordan's banks? Must it not be still to him a thought of purest joy, as in the chambers of his never-forgetful spirit, there is treasured up the memory of his long sad sojourn amongst our unheavenly, unspiritual, un

fatherlike race! To such a one as Jesus, in such circumstances as his, the opened heavens, the peacefully descending Spirit, and the acknowledging voice of the loving Father, must have been of priceless worth. And, doubtless, so it was, for, as the context shews, thus beatified, strengthened, and accredited, forth he went into the wilderness, to meet the arch foe in single fight, accepted his every challenge, and vanquished him in each assault.

We submit, as obvious practical conclusions from this interesting narrative,-First, The grand duty of a loyal and filial surrender to the whole counsel of God. The submission of Jesus, in this instance, consonant as it is with all his life, and supported as it stands by the argument, 'Thus it becometh us,' leaves no scope for hesitancy with the truly filial spirit. Another spirit altogether than that which actuated Jesus and John, can alone prevent the disciple from following the example here so illustriously set before him. Let this example be but thought of, and its genial and corrective power cannot fail to be experienced. Second, The narrative excites to duty under the joyous consciousness and expectation of the heavens being opened to us, of the divine Spirit being graciously shed abroad in our hearts; and of the Father's approbating voice acknowledging us as his own chosen children. If it was through obedience, that God's own dear Son received these fatherly acknowledgments, can we expect them if we follow not the path that Jesus trod, or can we fail to receive them if we trace his footsteps? We trow not.

ED.

REVISION OF THE BIBLE.

Substance of a Lecture delivered in Camden Hall, London, 11th January 1857, by W. D. HARRIS.

THY word is very pure! Psal. cxix. 140.

You shall not add to, nor diminish from it, Deut. iv. 2.

You shall write all the words very plainly, Deut. xxvii. 8. They gave the sense, and caused them to understand the meaning, Neh. viii. 8.

Do we require a revised translation of the common English version of the Bible? This is said to be a question of the present day! We should rather say, It has been so ever since the present version was issued in 1611. Of late, however, the subject has excited more general attention, and much is daily written and said, pro and con. We therefore introduce the question, hoping to assist the right side of the controversy. That every Englishman has an interest in it,

and is required to give an answer to it, is clear from the fact, which you will all admit, that the Book is a revelation from the one God to every man. You all, probably, believe that the men who wrote the Bible were holy men, who wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit; but you need not be informed-although we meet with some who need to be reminded-that the Translators of the common version were not, nor did they pretend to be, infallible, or free from error. On this there is no question. The question at issue is, whether the translation contains such errors as tend to mislead its readers in their faith and practice? This we affirm, and this we shall proceed to prove,-First, however, observing that we are willing to attribute this rather to the incapacity, than the want of fidelity, of the Translators; and, secondly, that no men could possibly perform such a work so accurately in 1611 as in 1857. Words and phrases which have become obsolete, we shall not cite as errors, although these are so numerous and so obsolete as to furnish one among other reasons for revision,-e. g., Bestead, Bewray, Bruit, Seethe, Sith, Wist, Wot, &c., &c. Perhaps you are aware that the modern word for Wot is know, and that Wist is knew; yet not one in ten could give the modern words for Bruit, Bestead, or Bewray. And how many, even of such as daily read The Book, know that Ear is the old English word for Plough. See Exod. xxxiv. 21, Isa, xxx. 24, &c. Of this class we have Conversation for Behaviour, Leasing for Lying, Quick for Alive, &c. Besides these, a revised translation would give us Lamp for Candle, Lamp-stand for Candlestick, Written for Printed, Reed for Pen, &c., Matt. v. 15, Job xix. 23, &c. Candles, Printing, and Pens were then unknown. Who knows that 2, 7, 10, &c., were not always used in the exact sense in which we use them that two often means a few, ten many, seven all, &c. See 1 Kings xvii. 12, Job. xix. 3. Besides which, we have two for one, Matt. ii. 16. Go to, for come, Jas. v. 1. Guilty for worthy, Matt. xxvi. 66, &c. It is singular that our Translators left some words untranslated, and these are of three classes. I. Those which are, nevertheless, sometimes translated-as Amen (so it is), Satan (Adversary), Angel (Messenger), &c. II. Those which are left with an explanation, as Ephphatha, Tabitha, Rabbi, Christ, &c.; and, III. Those which the English reader is left to translate, or find an explanation of, as he can; as Baptize, Jah, Hallelujah, Hosannah, &c.

Why did they not translate the word Baptize. Not, as some say, because it is so indefinite that no one English word would convey its meaning. For that is false. Not that it means this, that, or the other. Nor that there are several modes of Baptism.' True, there are men who say so; but it is a delusion, a gross deception, an imposition on the ignorant and the credulous. And if those who say so, do not know better, they ought to do, and may do so. Our Translators could have translated it, but at that time, as now, there was a contention about it. Those who contended that it should be sprinkle, pour, &c., would have cried out had it been rendered immerse or dip; and vice versa. It was therefore deemed inexpedient to translate it. But was it right? See Deut. xxvii. 8. It was their duty to have translated it plainly, by the one definite word, which intelligibly expresses the definite action signified by the original word