JOB, THE BOOK OF their conduct, becomes discomposed and breaks silence. His first observations are based on the assertion-not, indeed, broadly expressed-that God acts harshly and arbitrarily in inflicting calamity on men. This causes a discussion between him and his friends, which is divided into three main parts, each with subdivisions, and embraces the speeches of the three friends of Job, and his answers: the last part, however, consists of only two subdivisions, the third friend, Zophar, having nothing to rejoin. By this silence the author of the book generally designates the defeat of Job's friends, who are defending a common cause. Taking a general view of the argument which they urge against him, they may be considered as asserting the following positions: 1. No man being free from sin, we need not wonder that we are liable to calamities, for which we must account by a reference, not to God, but to ourselves. From the misery of the distressed, others are enabled to infer their guilt; and they must take this view in order to vindicate divine justice. 2. The distress of a man proves not only that he has sinned, but shows also the degree and measure of his sin; and thus, from the extent of calamity sustained, may be inferred the extent of sins committed; and from this the measure of impending misfortune. 3. A distressed man may recover his former happiness, and even attain to greater fortune than he ever enjoyed before, if he takes a warning from his afflictions, repents of his sins, reforms his life, and raises himself to a higher degree of moral rectitude. Impatience and irreverent expostulation with God serve but to prolong and increase punishment; for, by accusing God of injustice. a fresh sin is added to former transgressions. 4. Though the wicked man is capable of prosperity, still it is never lasting. The most awful retribution soon overtakes him; and his transient felicity must itself be considered as punishment, since it renders hita heedless, and makes him feel misfortune more keenly. In opposition to them, Job maintains: 1. The most upright man may be highly unfortunate-more 20 than the inevitable faults and shortcomings of human nature would seem to imply. There is a savage cruelty, deserving the severities of the Divine resentment, in inferring the guilt of a man from his distresses. In distributing good and evil, God regards neither merit nor guilt, but acts according to His sove reign pleasure. His omnipotence is apparent in every part of the creation; but His justice cannot be seen in the government of the world; the afflictions of the righteous, as well as the prosperity of the wicked, are evidence against it. There are innumerable cases, and Job considers his own to be one of them, in which a sufferer has a right to justify himself before God, and to repine at His decrees. Of this supposed right Job freely avails himself, and maintains it against his friends. 2. In a state of composure and calmer reflection, Job retracts, chiefly in his concluding speech, all his former rather extravagant assertions, and says that, although God generally afflicts the wicked and blesses the righteous, still there are exceptions to this rule, single cases in which the pious undergo severe trials; the infe | rence, therefore, of a man's guilt from his misfortunes is by no means warranted. For the exceptions established by experience prove that God does not always distribute prosperity and adversity after this rule; but that he sometimes acts on a different principle, or as an absolute lord, according to his mere will and pleasure. 3. Humbly to adore God is our duty, even when we are subject to calamities not at all deserved; but we should abstain from harshly judging of those who, when distressed, send forth complaints against God. The interest of the narrative is kept up with considerable skill, by progressively rising and highly passionate language. At first, Job's friends charge him, and he defends himself, in mild terms; but gradually they are all betrayed into warmth of temper, which goes on increasing until the friends have nothing more to object, and Job remains in possession of the field. The discussion then seems to be at an end, when a fresh disputant, Elihu, appears. Trusting in his just cause, Job had proudly opposed God, with whom he expostulated, and whom he charged with injustice, when the sense of his calamities should have led him to acknowledge the sinfulness of human nature, and humbly to submit to the Divine dispensations. Making every allowance for his painful situation, and putting the mildest construction on his expressions, he is still substantially wrong, and could not therefore be suffered to remain the vanquisher in this high argument. He had silenced his friends, but the general issue remained to be settled. Elihu had waited till Job and his friends had spoken, because they were older than he; but when he saw that the three visitors ceased to answer, he offers himself to reason with Job, and shows that God is just in his ways. He does this, 1. From the nature of inflictions.--He begins by urging that Job was very wrong in boasting of his integrity, and making it appear that rewards were due to him from God. How righteous Sever he was, he still had no claim to reward; on the contrary, all men are sinners in God's eyes; and nobody can complain that he suffers unjustly, for the very greatest sufferings equal not his immense guilt. Then Elihu explains a leading point on which he differs from the friends of Job: he asserts that from greater sufferings inflicted on a person it was not to be inferred that he had sinned more than others afflicted with a less amount of calamity. Calamities were, indeed, under all circumstances, punishments for sins committed, but at the same time they were correctives also; and therefore they might be inflicted on the comparatively most righteous in preference to others. If the object of afflictions was attained, and the distressed acknowledged his sinfulness, he would humble himself before God, who would bless him with greater happiness than he ever before enjoyed. But he who took not this view, and did not amend his ways, would be ruined, and the blame would rest wholly with himself. Consequently, if Job made the best of his misfortune, God would render him most happy; but if he continued refractory, punishment would follow his offences. 2. From a clear conception of the nature of God. -The whole creation shows forth His majesty, and evinces His justice. For a man to stand up against Him and to assert that he suffers innocently, is the greatest anthropomorphism, because it goes to deny the Divine majesty, evident in all the facts of the created world, and including God's justice. His nature being one and indivisible, it cannot on one side exhibit infinite perfection, and on the other imperfection: each example, then, of God's grandeur in the creation of the world is evidence against the rash accusers of God's justice. God must be just-this is certain from the outset; and how His justice is not impaired by calamities inflicted on the righteous and on thyself, I have already explained.' Job had, in a stirring manner, several times, challenged God to decide the contest. Elihu suspects the approach of the Lord, when, towards the end of his speech, a violent thunder-storm arises, and God answers Job out of the whirlwind, showing how foolishly the latter had acted in offering to reason with Him, when His works proved His infinite majesty, and, consequently, His absolute justice. Job now submits to God, and humbly repents of his offence. Hereupon God addresses Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, declaring unto them His displeasure at their unmerciful dealing with their friend, the consequences of which could only be avoided by Job offering a propitiatory sacrifice. This is done, and the Lord grants unto Job ample compensation for his sufferings. II. DESIGN OF THE BOOK. All agree that the object of the book is the solution of the question, how the afflictions of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked can be consistent with God's justice. But it should be observed that the direct problem exclusively refers to the first point, the second being only incidentally discussed on occasion of the leading theme. If this is overlooked, the author would appear to have solved only one half of his problem; the case from which the whole discussion proceeds, has reference merely to the leading problem. The solution of the problem regarding the sufferings of the righteous rests on two positions. 1. Calamity is the only way that leads to the kingdom of God. 2. Calamity, as the veiled grace of God, is with the pious never alone, but manifest proofs of Divine favour accompany or follow it. Though sunk in misery, they still are happier than the wicked, and when it has attained its object, it is terminated by the Lord. It is this exclusively correct solution of the problem which occurs in the book of Job. It is not given in Job's speeches or in the speeches of his friends, neither is it exclusively given in the addresses of God which contain only the basis of the solution, not the solution itself. But all interpreters allow that it is set forth in Elihu's speeches which appear to contain the opinion of the author. The leading principle in Elihu's statement is, that calamity in the shape of trial was inflicted even on the comparatively best men, but that God allowed a favourable turn to take place as soon as it had attained its object. Now this is the key to the events of Job's life. Though a pious and righteous maa, he is tried by severe afflictions. He knows not for what purpose he is smitten, and his calamity continues; but when he learns it from the addresses of Elihu and God, JOB, THE BOOK OF and humbles himself, he is relieved from the burden which oppresses him, and ample prosperity atones for the afflictions he has sustained. Add to this, that the remaining portion of Elihu's speeches, in which he points to God's infinite majesty as including his justice, is continued in || the addresses of God; that Elihu foretells God's appearance; that he is not punished by God as are the friends of Job; in fine, that Job by his very silence acknowledges the problem to have been solved by Elihu; and his silence is the more significant because Elihu had urged him to defend himself (xxxiii. 32), and because Job had repeatedly declared he would hold his peace,' if it was shown to him wherein he had erred (vi. 24, 25; xix. 4). In regard to the character of the composition of the book there are three different opinions:1. Some contend that the book contains an entirely true history. 2. Others assert that it is founded on a true history, which has been recast, modified, and enlarged by the author. 3. The third opinion is, that the book contains a narrative entirely imaginary, and constructed by the author to teach a great moral truth. The first view, taken by numerous ancient interpreters, is now abandoned by nearly all interpreters. It seems, however, to have been adopted by Josephus, for he places Job in the list of the historical books; and it was prevalent with all the fathers of the church. In its support it is said, 1. That Job is (Ezek. xiv. 14-20) mentioned as a public character, together with Noah and Daniel, and represented as an example of piety. 2. In the epistle of James (v. 11), patience in sufferings is recommended by a reference to Job. We must confine ourselves to contending for an historical foundation of the book, but must not undertake to determine the exact nature of the groundwork. That its historical framework was poetically enlarged by the author, has been already observed by Luther. As for the rest, the subtility displayed in explaining opposite views, the carefully drawn characters of the persons introduced, and their animated discourses, lead us to suppose that the question at issue had previously been the subject of various discussions in presence of the author, who, perhaps, took part in them. Thus there would be an historical foundation, not only for the facts related in the book, but to a certain extent also for the speeches. Opinions differed in ancient times as to the nation to which the author belonged; some considering him to have been an Arab, others an Israelite; but the latter supposition is undoubt edly preferable. For, 1st, we find in our book many ideas of genuine Israelite growth: the creation of the world is described, in accordance with the prevailing notions of the Israelites, as the immediate effect of Divine omnipotence; man is formed of clay; the spirit of man is God's breath; God employs the angels for the performance of his orders; Satan, the enemy of the chosen children of God, is his instrument for tempting them; men are weak and sinful; nobody is pure in the sight of God; moral corruption is propagated. There is promulgated to men the law of God, which they must not infringe, and the transgressions of which are visited on JOB, THE BOOK OF offenders with punishments. Moreover, the nether world is depicted in hues entirely Hebrew. To these particulars might, without much trouble, be added many more; but the deep-searching inquirer will particularly weigh, 2ndly, the fact, that the book displays a strength and fervour of religious faith, such as could only be expected within the domain of revelation. Proceeding to the inquiry as to the age of the author of this book, we meet with three opinions--1. That he lived before Moses, or was, at least, his contemporary. 2. That he lived in the time of Solomon, or in the centuries next following. 3. That he lived shortly before, or during, or even after the Babylonian exile. The view of those who assert the book to have been written long after the Babylonian exile, can be supported neither by the nature of its language nor by reasons derived from its historical groundwork, and is therefore now generally rejected. Against this view, militate, first, the references to it in the Old Testament, which prove that it was before this period a generally known writing. Thus, in Ezek. xiv. 14-20, are mentioned three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job,' as examples of righteousness. Further, in Jeremiah xx. 14, we find evidently imitated Job's cursing of the day of his birth (ch. iii.). Not only the sentiments but the words are often the same. There are also in the Lamentations of Jeremiah, many passages clearly alluding to our book, which must have eminently suited the taste of this prophet and interested him (comp. xvi. 13 with Lam. ii. 16; and xix. 8, with Lam. iii. 7, 9). Another example of words borrowed from Job occurs in Psalm cvii. 42, where the second part of the verse agrees literally with Job v. 16. 2. A most decisive reason against assigning the composition of Job to the period of the Exile is derived from the language, since it is free from those Chaldaisms which occur in the books written about that time. Eichhorn justly observes, Let him who is fit for such researches, only read, first, a writing, tainted with Aramæisms, and next the book of Job: they will be found diverging as east and west.' 3. Equally conclusive is the poetical character of the book. The Exile might produce a soft, moving poem, but could not give birth to such a rich, compact, animated, and warm composition as ours, breathing youthful freshness throughout. Ewald, in acknowledging this, says justly, The high skill displayed in this book cannot be well expected from later centuries, when poetry had by degrees generally declined, and particularly in the higher art required by large compositions; and language so concise and expressive as that of our author, is not found in writings of later times.' To the view which places the age of the book of Job in the time of the Babylonian exile, is most opposed that which assigns the composition of it to a period prior to Moses. In support of this latter view, two arguments have been adduced. It is said, 1. There is in the book of Job no direct reference to the Mosaic legislation; and its descriptions and other statements are suited to the period of the patriarchs; as, for instance, the great authority held by old men, the high age of Job, and fathers offering sacrifices for their families-which leads to the supposition that when our book was written no sacerdotal order yet existed.' These points, however, are quite intelligible, if the design of the book, as stated above, is kept in view. The author intended not to rest the decision of the question at issue on particular passages of Scripture, but on religious consciousness and experience. This at once explains why he places the scene without Palestine, why he places it in the patriarchal age, and why he avoids the use of the name Jehovah; of these three items the first sufficiently accounts for no reference being made to the Mosaic legislation. 2. The language of the book of Job seems strongly to support the opinion of its having been written before Moses.' It has been often said, that no writing of the Old Testament may be more frequently illustrated from the Arabic than this book. In answer to this it has been said that this inference would be safe only if the book were written in prose, and that the selection of obsolete and rare words and forms, with the Hebrews, was a peculiar feature of the poetical style, and served to distinguish it from the usual, habitual way of writing; and that this peculiarity belongs to our book more than to any other. With regard to the reasons in support of the opinion that the book of Job was written after the age of Moses, most of them are either not conclusive at all, or not quite cogent. Thus it is an arbitrary assumption, proved by modern researches to be erroneous, that the art of writing was unknown previous to the age of Moses. The assertion too, that the marks of cultivation and refinement observable in our book belonged to a later age, rests on no historical ground. The evident correspondence also between this book and the Proverbs and Psalms is not a point proving with resistless force that they were all written at the same time. It is, indeed, sometimes of such a kind, that the authors of the Proverbs and Psalms cannot be exactly said to have copied our book; but it may be accounted for by their all belonging to the same class of writings, by the very great uniformity and accordance of religious conceptions and sentiments expressed in the Old Testament, and by the stability of its religious character. Summing up the whole of our investigations, we take it to be a settled point that the book of Job does not belong to the time of the Babylonian exile; and it cannot have been composed later than the era of Isaiah, who alludes to it. With this result we must rest satisfied. There remains uncertainty, but it does not concern an important point of religion. The significancy of our book for the church rests on the evidence of our Lord and his apostles in support of the inspiration of the whole collection of the Old Testament, and on the confirmation which this external evidence has at all times received, and continues to receive, from the internal testimony, among the true believers of all ages. JOB'S DISEASE. The opinion that the malady under which Job suffered was elephantiasis, or black leprosy, is very ancient, and, in modern times, it is entertained by the best scholars generally. The passages which are considered to indicate this disease are found in the description of his skin burning from head to foot, so that he took a potsherd to scrape himself (ii. 7, 8); in its being covered with putrefaction and crusts of earth, and being at one time stiff and hard, while at another it cracked and discharged fluid (vii. 5); in the offensive breath which drove away the kindness of attendants (xix. 17); in the restless nights, which were either sleepless or scared with frightful dreams (vii. 13, 14; xxx. 17); in general emaciation (xvi. 8); and in so intense a loathing of the burden of life, that strangling and death were preferable to it (vii. 15). In this, as in most other Biblical diseases, there is too little distinct description of symptoms to enable us to determine the precise malady intended. But the general character of the complaint under which Job suffered, bears a greater resemblance to elephantiasis than to any other disease [LEPROSY]. JOHANAN graphic force. There is considerable diversity of sentiment as to the point whether these descriptions are to be understood literally or figuratively. The figurative interpretation has, it must be allowed, the support of antiquity. It was adopted by the Chaldee paraphrast, Ephrem the Syrian (A.D. 350), and the Jews in the time of Jerome (A.D. 400). Ephrem supposes that by the four different denominations of the locusts were intended Tiglath-pileser, Shalmaneser, Sennacherib, and Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews, in the time of Jerome, understood by the first term the Assyrians and Chaldeans; by the second, the Medes and Persians; by the third, Alexander the Great and his successors; and by the fourth, the Romans. Grotius applies the description to the invasions by Pul and Shalmaneser. Holzhausen attempts to unite both modes of interpretation, and applies the language literally to the locusts, and metaphorically to the Assyrians. It is singular, however, that, if a hostile invasion be intended, not the least hint is given of personal injury sustained by the inhabitants; the immediate effects are confined entirely to the vegetable productions and the cattle. JOCHEBED (God-glorified), wife of Amram and mother of Miriam, Moses and Aaron. In Exod. vi. 20, Jochebed is expressly declared to have been the sister of Amram's father, and consequently the aunt of her husband. As marriage between persons thus related was afterwards forbidden by the law (Lev. xviii. 12), various attempts have been made to show that the relationship was more distant than the text in its literal meaning indicates. We see no necessity The prophet, after describing the approaching for this. The mere mention of the relationship judgments, calls on his countrymen to repent, implies that there was something remarkable in assuring them of the divine placability and readi the case; but if we show that nothing is remark-ness to forgive (ii. 12-17). He foretels the restorable, we do away the occasion for the relationship being at all noticed. The fact seems to be, that where this marriage was contracted, there was no law forbidding such alliances, but they must in any case have been unusual, although not forbidden; and this, with the writer's knowledge that they were subsequently interdicted, sufficiently accounts for this one being so pointedly mentioned. The candour of the historian in declaring himself to be sprung from a marriage, afterwards forbidden by the law, delivered through himself, deserves especial notice. JO'EL (worshipper of Jehovah), one of the twelve minor prophets, the son of Pethuel. Of his birth-place nothing is known with certainty. From the local allusions in his prophecy, we may infer that he discharged his office in the kingdom of Judah. But the references to the temple, its priests and sacrifices, are rather slender grounds for conjecturing that he belonged to the sacerdotal order. Various opinions have been held respect ing the period in which he lived. It appears most probable that he was contemporary with Amos and Isaiah, and delivered his predictions in the reign of Uzziah, between 800 and 780 B.C. ation of the land to its former fertility, and declares that Jehovah would still be their God (ii. 18-26). He then announces the spiritual blessings which would be poured forth in the Messianic age (iii. 1-5, Heb. text; ii. 28-32, Auth. Vers.). This remarkable prediction is applied by the Apostle Peter to the events that transpired on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 16-21). In the last chapter the divine vengeance is denounced against the enemies and oppressors of the chosen people, of whom the Phoenicians, Egyptians, and Edomites are especially named. The style of Joel, it has been remarked, unites the strength of Micah with the tenderness of Jeremiah. In vividness of description he rivals Nahum, and in sublimity and majesty is scarcely inferior to Isaiah and Habakkuk, The canonicity of this book has never been called in question. JOHANAN (God-bestowed); one of the officers who came and recognised Gedaliah as governor of Judæa after the destruction of Jerusalem, and who appears to have been the chief in authority and influence among them. He penetrated the designs of Ishmael against the governor, whom This prophet opens his commission by an- he endeavoured, without success, to put upon his nouncing an extraordinary plague of locusts, guard. When Ishmael had accomplished his deaccompanied with extreme drought, which he sign by the murder of Gedaliah, and was carrying depicts in a strain of animated and sublime poetry away the principal persons at the seat of governunder the image of an invading army. The fide- ment as captives to the Ammonites, Johanan purlity of his highly-wrought description is corro- sued him, and released them. Being fearful, borated and illustrated by the testimonies of however, that the Chaldæans might misunderShaw, Volney, Forbes, and other eminent travel- stand the affair, and make him and those who were lers, who have been eye-witnesses of the ravages with him responsible for it, he resolved to withcommitted by this most terrible of the insect draw for safety into Egypt, with the principal tribe. In the second chapter, the formidable persons of the remnant left in the land. Jeremiah aspect of the locusts-their rapid progress-their remonstrated against this decision; but Johanan sweeping devastation-the awful murmur of their would not be moved, and even constrained the countless throngs-their instinctive marshalling-prophet himself to go with them. They prothe irresistible perseverance with which they make their way over every obstacle and through every aperture are delineated with the utmost ceeded to Taphanes, but nothing further is recorded of Johanan. B.C. 588 (2 Kings xxv. 23; Jer. xl. 8-16; xli.; xlii.; xliii.). JOHN THE BAPTIST JOHN THE BAPTIST. The name John denotes grace or favour. In the church John commonly bears the honourable title of forerunner of the Lord.' His parents were Zacharias and Elisabeth, the latter a cousin of Mary,' the mother of Jesus, whose senior John was by a period of six months (Luke i.). According to the account contained in the first chapter of Luke, his father, while engaged in burning incense, was visited by the angel Gabriel, who informed him that in compliance with his prayers his wife should bear a son, whose name he should call John--in allusion to the grace thus accorded. A description of the manner of his son's life is given, which in effect states that he was to be a Nazarite, abstaining from bodily indulgences, was to receive special favour and aid of God, was to prove a great religious and social reformer, and so prepare the way for the long-expected Messiah. Zacharias was slow to believe these tidings and sought some token in evidence of their truth. Accordingly a sign was given which acted also as a punishment of his want of faith-his tongue was sealed till the prediction should be fulfilled by the event. Six months after Elisabeth had conceived she received a visit from Mary, the future mother of Jesus. On being saluted by her relation, Elisabeth felt her babe leap in her womb, and, being filled with the holy spirit, she broke forth into a poetic congratulation to Mary, as the destined mother of her Lord. At length Elisabeth brought forth a son, whom the relatives were disposed to name Zacharias, after his father--but Elisabeth was in some way led to wish that he should be called John. The matter was referred to the father, who signified in writing that his name was to be John. This agreement with Elisabeth caused all to marvel. Zacharias now had his tongue loosed, and he first employed his restored power in praising God. These singular events caused universal surprise, and led people to expect that the Ghild would prove a distinguished man. a kind as that which Jesus required, is very probable; but the particulars into which he enters when he proceeds to address classes or individuals (Matt. iii. 7, sq.; Luke iii. 7, sq.), serve fully to show that the renovation at which he aimed was not merely of a material or organic, but chiefly of a moral nature. In a very emphatic manner did he warn the ecclesiastical and legal authorities of the land of the necessity under which they lay of an entire change of view, of aim. and of desire; declaring in explicit and awful terms that their pride of nationality would avail them nothing against the coming wrathful visitation, and that they were utterly mistaken in the notion that Divine Providence had any need of them for completing its own wise purposes (Luke iii. 8, 9). The first reason assigned by John for entering on his most weighty and perilous office was announced in these words-the kingdom of heaven is at hand.' It was his great work to prepare the mind of the nation, so that when Jesus himself came they might be a people made ready for the Lord. Had we space to develope the moral character of John, we could show that this fine, stern, high-minded teacher possessed many eminent qualities; but his personal and official modesty in keeping, in all circumstances, in the lower rank assigned him by God, must not pass without special mention. The doctrine and manner of life of John appear to have roused the entire of the south of Palestine, and people flocked from all parts to the spot where, on the banks of the Jordan, he baptized thousands unto repentance. Such, indeed, was the fame which he had gained, that people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ or not' (Luke iii. 15). Had he chosen, John might without doubt have assumed to himself the higher office, and risen to great worldly power. But he was faithful to his trust, and never failed to declare, in the fullest and clearest manner, that he was not the Christ, but merely The parents of John were not only of a priestly his harbinger, and that the sole work he had to order, but righteous and devout. Their influence, do was to usher in the day-spring from on high. in consequence, in the training of their son, would The more than prophetic fame of the Baptist be not only benign but suitable to the holy office reached the ears of Jesus in his Nazarene dwellwhich he was designed to fill. More than this-ing, far distant from the locality of John (Matt. the special aids of God's Spirit were with him (Luke i. 66). As a consequence of the lofty in fluences under which he was nurtured, the child waxed strong in spirit. The sacred writer adds that he was in the deserts till the day of his showing unto Israel (Luke i. 80). In the fifteenth year of the Emperor Tiberius, John made his public appearance, exhibiting the austerity, the costume, and the manner of life of the ancient Jewish prophets (Luke iii.; Matt. iii.). His raiment was camel's hair; he wore a plain leathern girdle about his loins; his food was what the desert spontaneously offered-locusts and wild honey from the rock. The burden of John's preaching bore no slight resemblance to the old prophetic exhortations, whose last echo had now died away for centuries. He called upon the Jewish people to repent, to change their minds, their dispositions and affections, and thus prepared the way for the great doctrine promulgated by his Lord, of the necessity of a spiritual regeneration. That the change which John had in view was by no means of so great or so elevated ii. 22, 23). The nature of the report-namely, that his Divinely-predicted forerunner had appeared in Judæa-showed our Lord that the time was now come for his being made manifest to Israel. Accordingly he comes to the place where John is to be baptized of him, in order that thus he might fulfil all that was required under the dispensation which was about to disappear (Matt. iii. 13). John's sense of inferiority inclines him to ask rather than to give baptism in the case of Jesus, who, however, wills to have it so, and is accordingly baptized of John. Immediately on the termination of this symbolical act, a Divine attestation is given from the opened vault of heaven, declaring Jesus to be in truth the long-looked-for Messiah-This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased' (Matt. iii. 17). The relation which subsisted between John and Jesus, after the emphatic testimony above recorded had been borne, we have not the materials to describe with full certainty. It seems but natural to think, when their hitherto relative position is taken into account. |