Bible Commentaries
Luke 3

Verses 1-18

XII

THE BEGINNING OF THE MINISTRY OF JOHN THE BAPTIST

Harmony pages 12-14 and Matthew 3:1-12; Mark 1:1-8; Luke 3:1-18.

In a preceding chapter we have considered somewhat the biblical material for a life of John the Baptist, and certain questions touching his position in the kingdom of our Lord. The analysis of that material will constitute the outline of all our discussion of John. We now take up the beginnings of his ministry.

The time, in our era, was A.D. 29, since John had been preaching several months before he baptized Jesus, and Luke tells us that "Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age" (Luke 3:23).

The true time would be four years earlier, A.D. 25, if we are correct in our revision of the Abbott Dyonisius Exiguus. It is characteristic of Luke to collate his date with the world movements. It was the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar who, as adopted son, succeeded Augustus, somewhat after the time that Jesus, twelve years old, became conscious of his messiahship. Since the deposition of Archelaus, Judea, ldumea, and Samaria had become an imperial province, ruled by procurators appointed by Caesar, and subordinated to Syria ruled by proconsul. About a year before Christ was baptized Tiberius had appointed Pontius Pilate the sixth procurator, and he remained in office until after Christ’s death. Pontius Pilate obtained this office because he had married the vicious granddaughter of Augustus; her profligate mother, daughter of Augustus, was one of the most infamous profligates of a profligate age. Strange it is that the New Testament is the only history that speaks a good word of either Pilate or his wife. In its fidelity as history, it neither omits the blemishes of its saints, nor withholds, when due, praise to the most wicked.

The military headquarters of the procurator was Caesarea, built by Herod the Great. But the turbulence of Jerusalem often required his presence in that city, particularly at the three great feasts. Pilate had already steeped Jerusalem in blood and had been forced by pressure of the Jews to withdraw the idolatrous Roman eagles from the holy city. (See Josephus, Antiquities, Book XVIII, Chapter 5, Section 1.) It was probably on this occasion that Pilate "mingled the blood of Galilean Jews with their sacrifices" in the Temple, to which our Lord later referred, at Luke 13:1-2. This Pilate, already at bitter feud with the Jews, was Roman ruler of Judea, Samaria, and ldumea, when John commenced his ministry.

At the same time Herod Antipas, who later beheaded John, and mocked our Lord at his trial, was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea. At the same time Herod Philip II was tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitus, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene. At Jerusalem the infamous Annas, and his son-in-law Joseph Caiaphas, were both high priests, contrary to Jewish law, but by Roman appointment. We shall see our Lord, some three and a half years later, brought before them both. These references of Luke enable us to understand the world political and ecclesiastic conditions under which the ministries of John and our Lord commenced.

The place is at the fords of the Jordan near Jericho. Later we see John at other places, higher up the Jordan, but never in the cities – always in the desert places. This fact alone demonstrates that John is not officiating as a priest of the Old Testament in either synagogue or temple, but as a reformer prophet of the new dispensation.

John’s dress, diet, and habits. "Now John himself had his raiment of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins, and his food was locusts and wild honey." The angel who announced his coming declared, "He shall drink no wine nor strong drink" (Luke 1:15). He fasted often, and taught his disciples to fast (Matthew 9:14; Mark 2:18; Luke 5:35). Our Lord himself said of him, "He came neither eating nor drinking," and adds, "but what went ye out to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they who are gorgeously appareled and live delicately are in kings’ courts (Luke 7:25).

You must understand that "the locusts" eaten by John were not fruits of the tree, "honey-locust," but migrating grasshoppers, a common enough food with many eastern people, and permitted as food by Jewish law (Leviticus 11:21-22).

His enduement for service. "He was full of the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb" (Luke 1:15), and like Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5) and Paul (Galatians 1:15) and his Lord (Isaiah 49:5), he was "set apart" to his office from his mother’s womb. Indeed, he was the only child known to historic records who, before he was born, "leaped with joy" spiritual (Luke 1:44).

His preparation. Our only record is: "And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the desert until the day of his showing unto Israel."

He was no product of the schools, either secular or rabbinical. He derived his knowledge from neither synagogue nor Temple, but was wholly taught by God. We have no information of the character of his necessarily profound meditations in his thirty years of desert life. The preparation was long, silent, and solitary. But he shook the world in his few months of public ministry.

After what order was he a prophet? The record is clear. The order was as unique as the order of his Lord’s priesthood. Malachi says, "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah come." This prophecy made a profound impression on the Jewish mind, as is evident from several New Testament incidents. It was a Jewish custom to place a chair for Elijah at the family feast following the circumcision of a child. If the chair was so placed when John was circumcised, they ought to have placed the baby in it, for behold, Elijah had come. Our Lord says expressly that John was the promised Elijah (Matthew 17:10-13; Mark 9:11-13). John himself disclaims being Elijah, that is, in a literal sense (John 1:21), but the announcing angel explains "He shall go before his face, in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke 1:17). Indeed, Elijah himself appears on the scene at the transfiguration of our Lord (Matthew 17:3). Elijah was by far the most dramatic of the Old Testament prophets, in his garb, in his desert life, in the abrupt entrances on the stage of life and sudden exits, in the long silences, in the great issues of reformation suddenly thrust for instant decision on the king and people. The resemblance between Elijah and John is every way striking. If Elijah had his weak Ahab and relentless Jezebel, John had his weak Herod Antipas and vindicative Herodias. If, through terror of Jezebel, Elijah flees and despairs, so John, in a dungeon, apprehensive of the "convenient day" of Herodias, falls into doubt.

THE COMMISSIONS OF JOHN THE BAPTIST
His commission as Elijah. Malachi says, "And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and smite the earth with a curse" (Malachi 4:6). To this the announcing angel refers, at Luke 1:17. The question arises, what is the exact meaning of the passage? Does it imply an alienation between parents and children, which John’s mission is to remove by restoring proper parental love and care toward their children and proper filial regard and reverence for parents, according to the reciprocal obligations of the Fifth Commandment, and on the line of Paul’s precepts – "fathers, provoke not your children to wrath, bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," and "children, obey your parents in the Lord"? If so, it was a mighty mission, for the earth is already cursed when these reciprocal obligations are disregarded, to the moral destruction of the family. If so, the passage becomes a golden text in all Sunday school movements. In my early ministry I so used it as a text before the Sunday School Convention of Texas assembled at old Independence. In my sermon I stressed the growing evil of race suicide, the fashionable mothers depriving their children of maternal love and care in order to attend the calls of a worldly, frivolous society, and the modern absorption of fathers in business which led them to disregard the spiritual welfare of their children.

But if this be the meaning, we fail to find this important matter the theme of special discussion either by Elijah or John. But, perhaps, the marginal reading of the revision conveys the true idea, "Turning the hearts of the fathers, with the hearts of the children" toward God, and not toward each other, and "turning the disobedient to the wisdom of the just." This last accords with the preaching of both Elijah and John, and lifts their commission from the fifth to the first commandment.

His commission as the messenger of the Temple visitor: "Behold) I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant, whom ye desire, behold, he cometh, saith Jehovah of hosts. But who can abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like the refiner’s fire, and like fuller’s soap; and he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi, and refine them as gold and silver; and they shall offer unto Jehovah offerings in righteousness." When men who remembered the glory of Solomon’s Temple lamented the comparative insignificance of Zerrubbabel’s Temple, the prophet Haggai assured them that the glory of the latter house should exceed the glory of the former house, because to it "The Desire of all nations should come." Now, John is the messenger who prepares the way for the Messiah to come suddenly to his Temple. That John did prepare the way for the Messiah’s searching and purifying visit to his Temple is evident from John 2:13-17.

His commission as the voice and the grader of the highway to God, Isaiah 40:1-11. This passage of Isaiah is the most important of the Old Testament forecasts of John, and perhaps it is the least understood in its richness. On it observe:

(1) It is the beginning of the Old Testament Book of Comfort. Commencing with the fortieth chapter, the last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah, treating of the Messiah’s advent and mission constitute the Old Testament Book of Comfort, as John 14-17, treating of the Holy Spirit’s advent and mission, constitute the New Testament Book of Comfort.

Isaiah’s paragraph commences: "Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned." The voice of John the Baptist is the response to this command to comfort.

(2) Therefore he is a preacher of the gospel, which means "good tidings" – "O thou that tellest good tidings to Zion, get thee up on a high mountain; O thou that tellest good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold, your God!" (Isaiah 40:9). Hence, as soon as John’s voice broke the prophetic silence of 400 years, Mark, in his first sentence drives down the corner post that establishes the starting point of the New Dispensation: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." And when our Lord comes up to Mark’s corner post, he puts up this discriminating signboard: "The law and the prophets were until John, and since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached and all men press into it."

What a pity that our pedobaptist brethren cannot lay aside their Old Testament colored glasses, and our Campbellite brethren lay aside their Pentecostal delusion concerning the kingdom, which mistakes the Spirit’s advent for the Messiah’s advent, and both of them with unveiled faces behold Mark’s corner post and our Lord’s signboard I

(3) Observe John’s grading of the King’s highway of Holiness (Isaiah 40:3-5). In this connection observe also the relevance of the Septuagint rendering of Isaiah 35:1, "The waste places of the Jordan shall be glad," or as a great scholar puts it: "The banks of the Jordan shall rejoice because of them," i.e., because of John and Jesus.

The same great chapter of Isaiah also says of John’s highway: "And a highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called the way of holiness; and the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for the redeemed; the wayfaring men, yea fools shall not err therein. No lion shall be there nor shall any ravenous beast go up thereon; they shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there. And the ransomed of Jehovah shall return and come with singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain gladness and joy, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away."

His commission as friend of the bridegroom. "He that hath the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom that standeth and heareth him rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is made full." The New Testament represents our Lord as the bridegroom of the church in the divine purpose (Ephesians 5:25-26) and at his first advent (Matthew 9:15; John 3:29) and at his final advent (Matthew 25:1-13; Ephesians 5:27; Revelation 19:6-9).

In our context, "the friend of the bridegroom" is not what we call the "best man," or first male attendant, who attends to the business matters and arranges the details of a marriage. It has a much higher meaning, to wit: the evangelist who, through his preaching, espouses the lost sinner to his Saviour. As Paul expresses it: ’For I espoused you to one husband, that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:2).

"The friend of the bridegroom" is even more than the officiating clergyman, who merely performs a marriage rite, without having had anything to do with bringing the groom and bride into loving relations. His business is to "make ready the people prepared for the Lord." Through his preaching the sinner is convicted of sin, and then through contrition led to repentance, and then through faith, is mystically united to Christ.

The idea is somewhat presented in the mission of Abraham’s servant (Genesis 24), who went to Haran to seek a wife for Isaac. He faithfully negotiated the business of his mission, and brought Rebekah to Isaac.

In this touching story, in which the old servant set forth in a matchless plea the worthiness of his master, Abraham, and the desirableness of his son, Isaac, so winning Rebekah to leave her father’s house and to accept Isaac as a husband, Edward Eggleston, in the Circuit Rider, makes his preacher take a theme: "I have come to seek a bride for my Lord," and so happily expounds it that a brilliant but worldly young lady arose at once, laid aside all her jewels, and openly professed faith in the glorious Saviour so faithfully presented by the preacher. What, then, every evangelist does in individual cases, John the Baptist did on a large scale, introducing and uniting a lost world to a gracious Saviour. To the sinner he said, "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world!" How gloriously he presented the excellencies of the Saviour appears from the record, and suggests to every preacher a great lesson on how to present acceptably and savingly the Saviour to the sinner. We must not, therefore, understand John’s mission as stern and sad, but full of joy.

His commission to give the knowledge of salvation in the remission of sins (Luke 1:77). On many accounts we should stress this point, because a modern denomination insists that God’s "law of pardon" was not announced until the first Pentecost after Christ’s resurrection.

It was not Peter, in Acts 2:38, who first promulgated this law of pardon. The honor belongs to John the Baptist. In my early ministry I held a debate with a preacher who affirmed that the kingdom of heaven was not set up until this day of Pentecost, and then in Acts 2:38 was the law of pardon first promulgated. I asked him these questions:

(1) What did Christ give to Peter? He said, "The keys of the kingdom."

(2) Did Peter have those keys on that Pentecost? He answered, "Yes."

(3) Did God then and there build a kingdom to fit the keys, or were the keys made to fit the kingdom?

(4) Did Peter, using the keys, open the door of the kingdom that day? He said, "Yes."

(5) Did he open it from the inside or from the outside? If from the inside, was not Peter in it? If from the outside, when and how did Peter himself get in?

(6) And if from the outside, when the 3,000 were added to them, did that leave them on the outside?

(7) Did Peter open the Jew door that day, and what door did he open in Acts to Acts 10:43? And if Acts 10:43 was the Gentile door, why did he [that preacher] not look there for the law of pardon to Gentiles, and why did he, a Gentile, deify the Jew door, Acts 2:38?

(8) And what about the door that John the Baptist opened in Luke 1:77?

His commission to announce the antecedent withering work of the Spirit. "The voice of one saying, Cry, And one said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodness thereof is the flower of the field. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, because the breath of Jehovah bloweth upon it; surely the people is grass. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the word of God shall stand forever."

On this text Spurgeon preached a great sermon. He said, "The command to John was to speak comfortably to Jerusalem" (Isaiah 40:1-2). And John asked, in order to speak comfortably, "What shall I cry?" And the strange answer comes: "Cry that all flesh is grass, and the grass withereth and the flower fadeth." That is, before you get to the comfort, the carnal nature must wither, then comes the spiritual nature, which abideth forever.

Therefore John said to fleshly Israel: "But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said unto them, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth, therefore) fruit worthy of repentance and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And even now the ax lieth at the root of the trees: every tree, therefore, that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire" (Matthew 3:7-10). This is John’s sermon on the necessity of regeneration.

This last commission of John leads up to a thorough discussion of the great staple of his preaching, "Repentance toward God on account of sin."

QUESTIONS

1. What is the time ill our era when John commenced preaching?

2. Show how Luke, in a characteristic way, collates this date with the political and ecclesiastical conditions of the world.

3. What was the place of John’s first preaching?

4. Describe his dress, diet and habits.

5. What of his enduement for service?

6. What of his preparation for service? Answer negatively and positively.

7. After what order was he a prophet, and what is the parallel between John and Elijah?

8. What was John’s commission as Elijah?

9. Which of the two meanings of this commission seems best to fit the work of John and Elijah?

10. What of his commission aa the messenger of the great Temple visitor? II. What was his commission as the voice and grader of the highway of God?

12. What the Old Testament book of comfort, and the New Testament book of comfort?

13. Describe how Mark and our Lord marked the beginning of the new dispensation.

14. What of the Septuagint rendering of Isaiah 35:1, and its application to John’s ministry?

15. What of the description of the highway in that chapter, graded by John?

16. In his commission as "friend of the bridegroom," does it mean that he was only what we call "the best man," or does it mean the same as the officiating preacher, or does it mean something higher than both? If so, what, and explain.

17. Illustrate by the remarkable history in Genesis 24.

18. Describe the Methodist preacher’s sermon on that chapter.

19. What of John’s commission with reference to remission of sins, and why should we stress this point?

20. Give the several questions propounded in a debate, where the affirmation was made that the kingdom of heaven was set up on the day of Pentecost, and the law of pardon then and there promulgated.

21. What of his commission to announce the antecedent withering work of the Holy Spirit?

22. Describe Spurgeon’s sermon on this text.

Verses 15-23

XVIII

THE MINISTRY OF JOHN THE BAPTIST (CONTINUED)

Harmony pages 14-16 and Matthew 3:11-17; Mark 1:1-11; Luke 3:15-23.

In several preceding chapters we have turned aside somewhat from the regular course of the narrative to consider, at length, at its first New Testament appearance, the vital and fundamental doctrine of repentance, as preached originally by John the Baptist, and continued by our Lord and all his apostles. We have seen that while John had clear conceptions of the etymology of words and of doctrines in their abstract sense, he was no mere theorist, but intensely practical, insisting on concrete truth as embodied in the daily life. To him, therefore repentance was as inseparable from fruits, worthy of it, as a tree is from its proper fruits. Hence he not only urges reformation in its positive and negative sense of "ceasing to do evil and learning to do well," but the instant and continuous responsibility to an inexorable judgment at the hands of the coming Messiah. "And even now the ax lieth at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. . . . Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor; and he will gather his wheat into his garner, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire." We now come to the comparison instituted by John between Christ and himself: "I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire." On this remarkable passage observe:

First, no comparison is instituted between the water baptism of John and the water baptism administered by our Lord through his disciples. They are exactly the same in subject, act and design, as has already been shown, but the comparison is wholly between the dignity of Christ’s superior person, office and power, and John’s inferior person, office and power. The dignity of person John counts not himself worthy to loose the latchet of the Messiah’s sandals. The Messiah is mightier than John, equaling him indeed in water baptism, but exceeding him in two other baptisms, to wit: baptism in the Holy Spirit, and baptism in fire.

The controversies of the ages arise on the meaning of "He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire." The first question to be answered is: Do baptism in the Spirit and in fire mean the same thing? In other words, is "baptism in fire" epexegetical of baptism in the Spirit? If they are identical in meaning, then what is the baptism in the Holy Spirit and in fire? And when, where, how, and why first administered by our Lord? And is it continuous now as well as then? But if baptism in the Spirit and baptism in fire be two distinct things, then what is the baptism in fire, and where, when, why and by whom administered? There is more confusion of mind, and more inconsistency of interpretation on these questions than on any other New Testament problems.

My own interpretation of the passage, and my answers to the questions are worth no more than the common sense and argument back of them. In general terms I refer first to three sermons in my first volume of sermons, entitled severally: (1) baptism in water; (2) baptism in the Holy Spirit; (3) baptism in fire.

Second, in my interpretation of Acts 2 there is an elaborate discussion of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, where for the first time in the history of the world it ever occurred. Just here we need something, clear indeed, but far less elaborate. Here, on one point at least, and much as I deprecate it, I must utterly dissent from Dr. Alexander Maclaren, commonly regarded as the prince of Baptist expositors.

In the first volume of his elaborate exposition of Matthew, he labors at great length to prove that "baptism in fire" is epexegetical of "baptism in the Holy Spirit." leaving the general impression on my mind, at least, that "baptism in fire" means cleansing or purification, about equal in force to sanctification. At other times I don’t know what he means. For if baptism in the Spirit and in fire is equivalent to sanctification, then how is it there was never in the history of the world, a baptism in the Spirit before the first Pentecost after Christ’s resurrection? Surely men were spiritually cleansed, sanctified before that date. My own mind is clear on the following negations:

(1) Baptism in the Holy Spirit is not regeneration, nor conversion, nor sanctification, but an entirely new thing, a thing of promise, unknown to the world until the first Pentecost after our Lord’s resurrection and exaltation. Whatever it is, it is wholly connected with the advent and administration of that "other Paraclete," the Holy Spirit, who as Christ’s alter ego, rules the churches on earth, while Christ remains, rules, and interests in heaven.

(2) The baptism in fire is not cleansing, but destructive and punitive, the exercise of sovereign judgment by our Lord, unto whom as the Son of Man, all judgment has been committed. Its punitive character as judgment takes cognizance only of one’s attitude toward and treatment of Christ in his cause and people as presented by the gospel. It is exercised now on nations or cities, as Jerusalem A.D. 70, and on the souls of the wicked when they die, as Dives in the parable (Luke 16:23-24); and on the bodies of all the living wicked in the great world-fire of the final advent (Malachi 4:1-2; 2 Peter 3:7-10) and finds its highest expression, when after the final judgment, the wicked, both souls and bodies, are baptized in the lake of fire (Matthew 10:28; Revelation 20:14-15).

That Dr. Maclaren is mistaken about the import of baptism in fire appears from the context. Read carefully the three verses, Matthew 3:10-12. The tenth verse closes: "Every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." The eleventh verse closes: "He will baptize you in fire." The twelfth verse closes: "But the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire."

It violates every sound principle of interpretation to make "fire" in the middle verse of the context mean something radically different from the "fire" in the first and third verses. There can be no doubt of the destructive, punitive character of the fire in verses ten and twelve; there should be none of the like import in verse eleven intervening. This becomes more evident when we consider that John is interpreting Malachi 3:1-4:3. The whole context of the prophecy shows that when the Messiah comes he will discriminate between evil and good persons (not mixed evil and good in one person), and separate them one from another by diverse fates, so that there would be no difficulty in discerning between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God, and him that serveth him not. The refiner’s fire of Malachi 3:2-3 has not a different purpose from the fire that burns like an oven in 4:1. We doubt not the appropriateness of using the refiner’s fire to represent the purifying work in individual character, as set forth by the hymn: "Thy dross to consume, thy gold to refine." And this would be a genuine work of sanctification. But such is not Malachi’s idea, in this connection, nor that of John the Baptist, as appears not only from Malachi 3:5-6; Malachi 3:16-18; Malachi 4:1-2, but from the historical fulfilment of Malachi 3:12, when he does come suddenly to his temple at the beginning and end of his ministry, John 2:13-18; Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-46. In neither of these Temple purgations was there a work of individual sanctification, but the latter is indirectly connected with the cursing of the barren fig tree, as in Matthew 3:10, the barren tree is hewn down and cast into the fire. Malachi is not considering a mixture of good and evil in one individual, the evil to be eliminated by the fire of chastisement; but he is considering a mixture of good people and evil people. God’s fire will be used to separate them and make evident the difference between them. So Paul discusses the same thought: "But if any man buildeth on the foundation gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble; each man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it is revealed in fire; and the fire itself shall prove each man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work shall abide which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire." Here Paul’s use of the fire, at the last great day, is not to separate the evil from the good in individual character, but it is to separate evil people from good people, who by unwise builders have been mingled together in building a temple upon the foundation, Christ. If the builder puts on the foundation, Christ, the unregenerate, hypocrites, formalists, ritualists, then that fire will separate them, and the builder who put them on will suffer loss to the extent that his work is destroyed in the revelation of that great fire test.

To find a fulfilment of the identity of the "baptism in Spirit and fire" in the "tongues of fire" at Pentecost is merely silly, since they were not tongues of fire, but “tongues like as of fire.” A rising flame parts itself into the appearance of tongues. So the luminous appearance at Pentecost distributed itself into tongues, as fire seems to do.

On our paragraph, Matthew 3:10-12, Dr. Broadus, in his commentary, ably shows that we may not interpret the "fire" in Matthew 3:11 as differing in import from the "fire" in Matthew 3:10; Matthew 3:12. To pray that we may "be baptized in fire," while not so meant, is equivalent to praying that we may be cast into hell. The baptism in fire is the punitive destruction of the wicked. A few terse sentences will enable us to discriminate:

In the baptism in fire, Christ is the administrator, an in- corrigible sinner is the subject, the element is fire, the design is punitive.

In the baptism in the Holy Spirit, Christ is the administrator, the Holy Spirit is the element, the subject is a Christian, the design is to accredit and empower him for service.

In regeneration the Holy Spirit is the agent or administrator, the subject is a sinner, the design is to make him a Christian.

In sanctification the Holy Spirit is the agent, the subject is a Christian, the design is to make him personally holy, i.e., a better Christian. Regeneration and sanctification have been wrought by the Spirit in all dispensations since Adam.

The baptism in the Holy Spirit never occurred in the history of the world until the first Pentecost after Christ’s exaltation.

But it was prefigured twice in types. First, when Moses had completed the tabernacle, or movable house of God, the cloud, representing the divine inhabitant, came down and filled it (Exodus 40:33-38). Second, when Solomon had completed the Temple, the fixed house of God, the cloud, representing the divine inhabitant, came down and occupied it (1 Kings 7:51-8:11).

So when Jesus had built his church, antitype of tabernacle and Temple, the Holy Spirit came down to accredit, empower and occupy it (Acts 2:1-33). In other words –

The baptism in the Spirit was the baptism of the church – the house that Jesus built to succeed the house that Solomon built, as that had succeeded the house that Moses built.

From that date the church was accredited, occupied and empowered by the other Paraclete, the Promised of the Father and the Sent of the Father and Son.

Daniel, in his great prophecy, fixing the date and order of events, says, "Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy" Here "the Most Holy" is a place, a house, and not the person, Christ. His anointing came at his baptism when the Spirit came on him.

As the sanctuary of both Moses and Solomon has been anointed when ready for use, so in this verse, following Messiah’s advent and expiation, a new most holy place was anointed by the coming of the Holy Spirit on the new Temple.

Because the old Temple had served its day, the very hour Christ said, "it is finished," referring to the expiation of sin by the true Lamb of God, "the veil of the temple was rent in twain from top to bottom." The new Temple was ready, waiting for its anointing on the day of Pentecost. Hence, I repeat, when we come to interpret Acts 2, all the words of John the Baptist and our Lord, in the Gospels, which speak of the baptism in the Spirit as a promise, and all the fulfilments, Acts 2:4; Acts 8:17; Acts 10:44-46; Acts 19:6, and Paul’s great exhaustive discussion at 1 Corinthians 12-14, will be fully considered.

The import of John’s comparison between Jesus and himself is, therefore, that Jesus is mightier than himself. John himself was not the Messiah, but only his herald. John is but a voice soon to be silenced forever. John must decrease, as the morning star pales and fades before the increasing light of the day. John is not the true light, but only a witness to the light. John indeed baptizes -penitent believers in water, but the one who follows him will not only continue the baptism in water, but will also baptize in the Holy Spirit and in fire.

THE CULMINATION OF JOHN’S MINISTRY

This predetermined culmination of John’s ministry was the manifestation of the Messiah to Israel. This manifestation would directly connect with his administration of the ordinance of baptism. He himself declares: "And I knew him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, for this cause came I baptizing in water. . . . And I knew him not, but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding on him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Spirit" (John 1:31; John 1:33). When by this sign the as yet unknown person of the Messiah is disclosed to John himself, then must he who had hitherto spoken of the coming Messiah in general terms now identify the person, and by repeated testimony lead Israel to accept him so identified, in all his messianic offices. So that the culmination of John’s ministry consists in two particulars:

(1) John must baptize the Messiah, receiving for himself in the ordinance demonstrative evidence of the right person.

(2) This person of the Messiah so manifested to John, must by him be identified to Israel and through his repeated witness, set forth in all his messianic offices as the object of their faith. These two things accomplished, his mission is ended forever. We can do no more in rounding out this chapter than to consider the first part of this culmination, reserving for the next chapter John’s identification to Israel of the person of the Messiah and his presentation of him in all his messianic offices as the object of faith. For the present, therefore, our theme is…

JOHN BAPTIZES THE MESSIAH
The Harmony, in three parallel columns, pages 15-16, gives us the record of this momentous event, according to three historians (Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22). All these historians identify the person so baptized as Jesus. Matthew says, "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him." Mark says, "And it came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan." Luke says, "Jesus also having been baptized." Thus the person of the Messiah is Jesus of Nazareth in Galilee. All of them give two heavenly attestations to Jesus as the Messiah; the visible descent on him of the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, and the voice of the -Father from the most excellent glory, declaring Jesus his most beloved Son in whom he is well pleased. He himself came to John and solicited baptism at his hands. The ordinance was administered in the river Jordan.

According to these and correlated passages, the honorable position of this ordinance in the kingdom of God is as follows:

(1) In it is the Messiah manifested.

(2) In it the whole Trinity are present. The Son is being baptized, the Holy Spirit and the Father attesting the Son. Hence in our Lord’s Great Commission, reaching to all nations throughout all time, those disciples must be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Thus the doctrine of the Trinity is indissolubly connected with baptism and is proclaimed wherever in pool, lake, river, or sea the ordinance is administered.

(3) Therefore it is a confession on the part of every disciple submitting to the ordinance that he accepts Jesus as the sent of the Father, and anointed of the Spirit to be his sacrifice, prophet, priest, king, and judge.

(4) Its symbolism expresses the heart, of the gospel and unites therein our Lord and all his disciples who follow his example (Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2:12; 1 Corinthians 15:1; 1 Corinthians 15:29).

A great sermon on the position of baptism has been translated into foreign languages. This was a sermon before the Southern Baptist Convention by Dr. Henry Holcombe Tucker, editor of the Christian Index. From this honorable position of the ordinance it follows that it should never be belittled or despised as a matter of small moment.

The act of John in baptizing Jesus was one thing and not three things. John did not sprinkle water in Hesys (rantizo) and pour water on Jesus (cheo) and dip Jesus in water (baptizo). He did a specific thing. Whatever the specific thing John did, to which Jesus submitted, is the thing which Jesus did when he also (through his disciples) baptized. (Compare John 3:22-23; John 4:1-2.) And it follows that the specific thing which John did, to which also Jesus submitted, and which he himself did (through his disciples) is the very thing which he commanded) in Matthew 28:19, to be done unto the end of time.

Apart from the clear meaning of baptizo, we may settle the question in another way. The argument of Romans 6:3 and Colossians 2:12 shows that Jesus was figuratively buried and raised in baptism, and that we who follow him are planted in the likeness of his death and also raised in the likeness of his f resurrection. Therefore baptism is indissolubly connected with the resurrection of the buried dead.

Since John administered a baptism (eis metanoian) unto repentance, a baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins (eis aphesin hamartion), we have the question, why should Jesus seek baptism at John’s hands, seeing he needed no repentance and no remission of sins? John himself raised this question: "But John would have hindered him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? But Jesus, answering said unto him, Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffereth him" (Matthew 3:14-15). The answer is clear, as John understood later. (See John 1:31; John 1:33.) John’s baptizing had a twofold purpose.(l) as related to penitent believers, (2) as to the Messiah himself. In no other way could John complete his ministry. Out of this comes another question, How harmonize John’s protest (Matthew 3:14) with his subsequent declaration, "I knew him not, at John 1:31; John 1:33? John could not know the person of the Messiah until he saw the appointed sign, the visible descent of the Spirit upon him, but he could be impressed in mind, in other ways, that Jesus was not a sinner needing repentance.

One of the most remarkable things about Jesus was a presence that at times filled friend and foe with awe and amazement. A glory of irresistible power radiated from him. I cite five instances of the radiating power of this presence on his enemies: Twice when he alone purged the Temple, driving all his panic-stricken enemies before him (John 2:13-16; Matthew 21:12 f; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45 f); the overawing of the Nazarenes when they rejected and sought to kill him (Luke 4:29-30); the prostration of those who sought to arrest him (John 18:6) ; the outcry of the demons when brought into his presence (Matthew 8:29 f; Mark 5; Luke 8.) Not only John the Baptist felt the radiating power of this sinless, awful presence, but Christ’s own disciples many times later. For example, Peter, at the miraculous draught of the fishes (Luke 5:8); Peter and others at the stilling of the tempest (Mark 4:41); at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:6-7); all the disciples on the last journey to Jerusalem (Mark 10:32). We thus understand how John the Baptist (Matthew 3:14) could be impressed with the sinlessness of Jesus, and yet not really know he was the Messiah until the sign came.

Now we have seen why Jesus should be baptized of John, but why baptized at all, that is, why to his own mind? The reasons are as follows:

(1) As he foreknew, in connection with this ordinance, it would be his own inauguration as Messiah. Therefore he overcame John’s scruples. Therefore, when baptized, he prayed for his spiritual anointing and the attestation of his Father. His prayer was not vague and indefinite. He knew he must be anointed as prophet, priest, and king, and sealed as the sacrifice for sin. He knew he must be endued for service as Messiah by the Holy Spirit. He must be equipped to resist and overcome the devil. All this appears as follows:

Anointing as Prophet: Read Isaiah 11:1-5; Isaiah 42:1-2, which describe his spiritual equipment for service. He prayed for that. The fulfilment is, "God gave not the Spirit to him by measure," but immeasurably (John 3:34). Read Isaiah 61:1 f and his declaration, Luke 4:16-21. He was anointed to do this very preaching.

Sealed for Sacrifice: Referring to this descent of the Spirit our Lord says, "Him hath God, the Father, sealed" (John 6:27).

On receipt of this enduement of the Spirit: He went at once to meet the temptation of Satan, as the Second Adam (Matthew 4:1 f; Mark 1:12 f; Luke 4:1 f).

So, also, the descent of the Spirit: Was his anointing as King and Priest.

(2) He was baptized to set forth in symbol the great truths of his gospel – his death, burial, resurrection (Romans 6:1 f; Colossians 2:12; 1 Corinthians 15:1; 1 Corinthians 15:29).

(3) As an example for all his followers (see same scriptures).

However, he had the messianic consciousness before his baptism. He sought the baptism; he overcame John’s scruples; he prayed for the anointing and attestation before he received them.

The meaning of his reply to John, "Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness" is that neither he nor John must stop at only one of the purposes of John’s baptism, but meet all the other purposes of that baptism. And evidently, as set forth in 2 above) this baptism would memorialize all righteousness, which comes by vicarious expiation, burial and resurrection. It would be a pictorial gospel.

QUESTIONS

1. What comparison did John institute between Christ and himself?

2. Was this a comparison between John’s baptism in water and Christ’s baptism in water? If not, what is the point of comparison?

3. On what phrase of this comparison arise the controversies of the ages, and what two questions are involved in the controversies?

4. From what great Baptist expositor does this interpretation dissent, and what is the point of the dissension?

5. What negations express the dissent from Dr. Maclaren?

6. How is the baptism in fire exercised?

7. Give the argument to show that Dr. Maclaren is mistaken about the baptism in fire.

8. Reply to the contention that tongues of fire at the first Pentecost after the resurrection, prove the identity of baptism in the Spirit and fire.

9. Analyze, in a few terse sentences, the baptism in fire, the baptism in the Holy Spirit, regeneration, and sanctification.

10. Show how the baptism in the Holy Spirit was twice prefigured.

11. Explain the baptism in the Holy Spirit from the passage in Daniel 9.

12. What of the predetermined culmination of John’s ministry, and what were his own words to show that it connected with his baptism in water?

13. It what two things, then, does the culmination of John’s ministry consist?

14. Who are the historians that give an account of John’s baptism of the Messiah?

15. In whom, as a person, do all these historians identify him?

16. What two attestations of Jesus as the Messiah do all the historians give?

17. According to these and correlated passages, what of the honorable position of this ordinance in the kingdom of God?

18. What great sermon on the position of baptism has been translated into foreign languages?

19. What follows from this honorable position of the ordinance?

20. What was the act of John in baptizing Jesus?

21. Apart from the clear meaning of baptize, how otherwise may we settle the question?

22. Why should Jesus seek baptism at John’s hands, seeing he needed no repentance and no remission of sins?

23. How may we harmonize John’s protest (Matthew 3:14) with his subsequent declaration, "I knew him not," (John 1:31; John 1:33)?

24. But why should Jesus be baptized at all?

25. How does it appear that he had the messianic consciousness before his baptism?

26. What, then, is the meaning of his reply to John, "Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness"?

Verses 23-38

V

BEGINNINGS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE

Broadus’ Harmony pages 5-6 and Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 1:5-80; Luke 3:23-38.

We have noted in a previous chapter John’s and Paul’s account of the divine side of our Lord’s existence, personality and activities before he became flesh. Now we consider, in Matthew, Luke, and Paul, his human side, human antecedents, human birth, and early life. We find Matthew’s account in Matthew 1-2, and Luke’s account in Luke 1-2 with the closing paragraph of Luke 3.

Matthew’s incidents are his genealogy, birth, the visit of the magi, the flight into Egypt, the massacre of the babes at Bethlehem, the return to the land of Israel, and resettlement at Nazareth in Galilee.

Luke’s incidents are the announcement to Zacharias of the birth of his son, John the Baptist, our Lord’s forerunner; the announcement to Mary of the birth of our Lord; Mary’s visit to Elisabeth; the birth of John the Baptist according to announcement; the birth of our Lord at Bethlehem; the announcement to the shepherds of that birth; the circumcision of our Lord; his presentation in the Temple with attendant circumstances ; the return to Nazareth; the development there of his childhood; the visit to the Temple when our Lord was twelve years old; the return to Nazareth and his development; into manhood; and his genealogy.

On this entire section we submit several general observations:

1. Matthew’s entire account is written from the viewpoint of Joseph, and for Jews. His genealogy is the genealogy of Joseph according to the legal Jewish method. Gabriel’s appearance to Joseph is to explain Mary’s condition. Indeed, all the four supernatural directions for the family movements come in dreams to Joseph. Every incident and every Old Testament quotation conspire to prove that Jesus of Nazareth is the foretold and long-expected King of the Jews.

2. Luke’s entire account is written from Mary’s viewpoint and to show our Lord’s broader relations to humanity. His genealogy is real, not legal. It is Mary’s genealogy, not Joseph’s, our Lord’s relations to Joseph being only a Jewish, legal supposition. While indeed it shows that Mary was a Jewess) really descended from David and Abraham, yet her genealogy extends back to Adam, in order to prove that her Son was the second Adam, and literally fulfilled the first gospel promise, "The seed of the woman [not of the man] shall bruise the serpent’s head."

It is to Mary, Gabriel announces her conception of a Son, by the Holy Spirit, who because thus sired shall be holy, the Son of God.

It is to Mary the angel announces the condition of Elisabeth, and thus prepares the way for Mary’s visit to Elisabeth. All of Luke’s other incidents are those which Mary "kept in her heart." The conjecture that Luke’s genealogy is also traced through Joseph is puerile in itself, utterly gratuitous, and at war with Luke’s whole plan. It is to invent a difficulty and then invite the harmonists of the two genealogies to settle it. Why should they be harmonized? They have different starting points (a legal son, a real son) and different objectives (Abraham – Adam); they are not even parallel lines, since they meet and part.

3. We here confront what Paul calls "the great mystery of Godliness" – the incarnation of our Lord. Isaiah, who had already foretold his virgin birth, in a clear prophecy concerning him, says, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). Quoting Isaiah, and because the virgin mother is with child by the Holy Ghost, Matthew says, "His name shall be called Immanuel (God with us)." In explanation of the way a virgin can become a mother, Luke’s angel says to Mary, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the Holy One who is begotten of thee shall be called the Son of God."

Mark says, "Jesus Christ, the Son of God." John says, "The Logos which was God, was manifested and became flesh." Paul says, "He who was the effulgence of God’s glory and the very image of his substance," (Hebrews 1:3) "who existed in the form of God . . . was made in the likeness of man (Philippians 2:6-8) was born of a woman" (Galatians 4:4). Not otherwise could he escape the hereditary taint of Adam’s sin (Genesis 5:3); not otherwise could he fulfil the protevangel, "the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head" (Genesis 3:15); not otherwise could he be the Second Adam, the second head of the race (Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:45-49).

Grant this one miracle, the greatest and most inclusive, and all others naturally follow. Deny this one, and there is no need to deny or even consider others (1 John 4:1-3).

4. Only twice do we find in the Bible the phrase, "The book of the generations" applied respectively to "The first Adam" (Genesis 5:1), and to the Second Adam (Matthew 1:1). And concerning this Second Adam, well might Isaiah inquire: "Who shall declare his generation," (common version, Isaiah 53:8) especially since "His name shall be Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6).

5. Nothing more commends the inspiration of the simplicity and reticence of this account of our Lord’s infancy, childhood and growth to manhood, than to contrast it with the silly and incredible fables invented in the early Christian centuries to gratify a prurient curiosity concerning a long period of our Lord’s life on which, beyond the few incidents recorded, our Gospels are silent. Nature, as well as grace, draws a modest veil over the period of conception, gestation, parturition, and development. Not only have these bald inventions concerning the infancy and childhood of our Lord disfigured the image in the mind naturally produced by the simple Bible story, but tradition, ever-increasing in imposture and lying, ad nauseum, has buried the few real incidents recorded under an accretion of fanciful enlargements, e.g., the incident of the magi, and even the blasphemies subverting the gospel and changing the very plan of salvation, e.g., the Mariology and Mariolatry developed from our simple gospel story of Mary by the Romanists of succeeding centuries.

6. Beyond the few incidents recorded of the first thirty years of our Lord’s preparation for his public work, this is every syllable of the gospel history: Luke puts in four pregnant sentences the whole period, (a) concerning the development of his childhood, "And the child grew and waxed strong, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon him" (Luke 2:40). (b) After the consciousness of his messiahship in the Temple, when he was twelve years old, "He went down with them (Mary and Joseph) and came to Nazareth; and he was subject to them" (Luke 2:51). (c) Referring back to his habit of attending the house of religious instruction at Nazareth, Luke later says, "He came to Nazareth where he had been brought up: and he entered, as his custom was, into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read" (Luke 4:16); (d) Concerning his development to manhood: "And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52). (e) Mark says that by occupation he was a carpenter (Luke 6:3).

These are all the direct references. But we may easily gather from his subsequent history that he had studied the book of nature in its plants, flowers, fruits, birds, animals, soil and its cultivation, its crops, harvests and vintages; that he was a lover of children and close observer of their plays; that he was familiar with the customs of the family and of society; that he was well acquainted with the religious sects and political parties of his country and its relation of subjection to Rome. It is evident also from his movements that he thoroughly understood all the variations of government in the Herod family.

As to literary attainments, apart from the evident religious training of a Jewish child, we know that he could read and speak fluently in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. He read and quoted at will and discerningly from both the Hebrew and the Greek versions of the Old Testament. Mark preserves and interprets many of his Aramaic expressions.

7. We should commence Matthew’s genealogy thus: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, called Immanuel (God with us)." And, allowing Paul to supplement Luke’s genealogy thus: "The Second Adam, who is the Lord from heaven, Jesus Christ himself (supposed son of Joseph) was the son of Heli," and so on back to the first Adam.

8. In these two accounts of our Lord’s infancy are eight distinct annunciations, adapted in time, place, medium, means, and circumstances to the recipient, together with eight other supernatural events.

(1) The annunciation by the angel Gabriel, in a vision, to Zacharias, ministering in the Temple, of the birth of John the Baptist, the forerunner of our Lord, and of Zacharias’ dumbness until the event (Luke 1:5 f).

(2) Gabriel’s annunciation to Mary of the birth of our Lord (Luke 1:26 f).

(3) The annunciation to Elisabeth of the presence of the appointed mother of our Lord, by her unborn baby’s leaping for joy (Luke 1:41 f).

(4) The angel’s annunciation to Joseph, in a dream, of the supernatural conception of Mary (Matthew 1:18 f).

(5) The angel’s annunciation, in a vision, to the shepherds near Bethlehem, of the birth of our Lord (Luke 2:8 f).

(6) The Spirit’s annunciation to Simeon that he should not see death until he had seen the Christ (Luke 2:26).

(7) Simeon’s annunciation, by prophetic inspiration, to Mary concerning her Son, and concerning the sword that would pierce her own soul (Luke 2:34-35).

(8) The annunciation to the magi, in the far East, by the appearance of a star, that the foretold and long-expected King of the Jews was born (Matthew 2:1 f).

The eight attending supernatural events are, – the prophetic utterances by Zacharias, Elisabeth, Mary, and Anna, the three additional dreams of Joseph and the one of the magi. Thus there are three vision – to Zacharias, Mary, and the shepherds; five dreams – four of Joseph and one of the magi; one annunciation by the Spirit to Simeon, one of Simeon to Mary by inspiration, one by a star, one by the leaping of an unborn babe, besides the prophetic inspiration of four.

9. In Luke’s account of the beginnings are five famous hymns, or the foundations from which they were later developed;

(1) "The Hail Mary," developed by the Romanists from a combination of the angel’s salutation to Mary (Luke 1:29) and Elisabeth’s salutation to Mary (Luke 1:42), with some extraneous additions.

(2) "The Magnificat," or Mary’s own hymn (Luke 1:46-55).

(3) "The Benedictus," or the song of Zacharias (Luke 1:68-79).

(4) "Gloria in Excelsis," developed from the song of the angels (Luke 2-14).

5) "Nunc Dimittis," developed from the words of Simeon (Luke 2:29-32).

10. The gospel histories teach concerning Mary, the mother of our Lord, that she was a modest, pious, but poor Jewish maiden, of the line of David, betrothed to Joseph, a just man, also of the line of David. She was endued with grace, to become the virgin mother of our Lord, and this supernatural conception was by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. Consequently her Son would be God’s Son, and not man’s. Being God’s Son, he would be born holy, unstained through hereditary taint, and as he was the only human being so born, he is called the Only Begotten Son of the Father. Because of her selection to become the mother of our Lord, all generations would call her blessed. Her marriage to Joseph before the birth of this child constituted him legally, though not really, a son of Joseph. In all these things Mary humbly submitted herself to the divine will. She piously kept in her heart all the attending prodigies, circumstances, and prophecies of his nativity and childhood. While married to Joseph, she knew him not until after the birth of her divine Son, but afterward lived with him in all marital relations, bearing four sons, whose names are given, besides daughters not named (Mark 6:3). After Joseph’s death, she followed her son, Jesus, with his younger half-brothers and sisters. From the record it is evident that more than once she was not without fault. On the whole, however, the impression left on the mind by the history is most charming. A maiden, chaste, modest, pious, and meekly submissive to God’s will, a true wife, a devoted, self-denying mother, patiently bearing all the sorrows attendant upon being the mother of her Saviour son. Well might Simeon say to her, "Yea, and a sword shall pierce through thine own soul," on which prophecy has been written a book of merit entitled The Sorrows of Mary.

At the death of Jesus, her other sons being poor and un- believers, she was taken to the home of John the apostle, in Jerusalem. What an unspeakable pity that religious superstition has foisted upon this simple, charming, gospel story of earth’s most honored woman, a monstrous Mariology of human invention, developed later into a blasphemous Mariolatry, which makes her usurp the place of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. As this hideous parasite on the gospel story of Mary roots in our lesson, we here give a summary of the invented.

MARIOLOGY MERGED INTO MARIOLATRY

The exaggeration of the meaning of the words: "All generations shall call me blessed." This blessedness, because a privilege, was declared by our Lord himself to be inferior to the blessings on personal obedience and service (Luke 11:27-28), and because this was a fleshly relation to our Lord, he declared it to be inferior to spiritual relations, which all may share (Mark 3:31-35).

Mary was a perpetual virgin, – that is, never knowing a man, and being the mother of only one child, Jesus. This was the earliest of the doctrines in point of time, and some Protestants today, for sentimental reasons, hold to it.

Mary free from actual sin. This freedom from actual sin, originally at least, was attributed to the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit, supposed to be exerted either after she was conceived or before she was born, as Jeremiah and John the Baptist were supposed to be sanctified, or else at the time the Holy Spirit came upon her at the conception of Christ.

Mary free from original sin. This was a late development of doctrine concerning Mary. There was no official and authoritative form of it before the sixteenth century. The Council of Trent, A. D. 1570, closed its decree on original sin with these words: "This same holy synod doth nevertheless declare that it is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Mary, the mother of God; but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV, of happy memory, are to be observed, under the pains contained in the said constitutions, which it renews." This official deliverance is a positive declaration of Mary’s freedom from original sin, and by the term "immaculate," would seem to declare her exempt from actual sin. The doctrine, however, culminates in positive form in the decree promulgated to the Roman Catholic world by Pope Pius IX, December 8, 1854. In this decree the Pope claims: First, that he pronounces, declares, and defines "under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost;" second, that what he sets forth is by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and in his own authority. The matter thus decreed and promulgated is as follows:

"The doctrine which holds the blessed virgin Mary to have been, from the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was revealed by God, and is, therefore, to be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful." The decree closes with the double anathema: First, that any who presume to even think in their hearts contrary to this deliverance stand self-condemned, have made shipwreck concerning the faith, and have fallen away from the unity of the church. Second, that they subject themselves to the penalties ordained by law, if by word or writing, or any other external means, they dare to signify what they think in their hearts.

You will observe, particularly, that this decree affirms that the doctrine of Mary’s freedom from original sin was revealed by God. The natural presumption is that this revelation is to be found in the Holy Scriptures. In this document the Pope does not claim that it was a special revelation to him, but that he is inspired to pronounce, declare, and define past revelations.

If God revealed it in the Holy Scriptures, it is strange that we cannot find it.

This doctrine of Mary’s freedom from original sin, which thus culminated, historically, December 8, 1854, may be said to have crystallized July 18, 1870, when the Vatican Council thus declared the infallibility of the Pope:

"It is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal church, by the divine assistance promised him in the blessed Peter, he is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his church should be endowed for defining doctrines, faith and morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the church."

She is the Mediatrix between Christ and man, as Jesus Christ is the Mediator between God and man. In other words, this element of the doctrines makes Mary take the place of the Holy Spirit) that is, we must reach Christ through Mary The development of the doctrine is shown in various works of art. For example, there are paintings which represent Christ as seated, and Mary below him, then later a painting of Christ and Mary on a level; and finally a painting representing Mary above Christ, who is angry at the world, and Mary is beseeching his favor for the world.

Mary, not Jesus, bruises the serpent’s head, or destroys Satan. As the preceding element of this doctrine puts Mary in the place of the Holy Spirit, so this element makes her take Christ’s office.

Mary the queen of heaven.

Mary the fountain of all grace, received by man and the only hope of salvation. This element puts her in the Father’s place.

Mary an object of worship.

Mary’s body was never allowed to see corruption, but was taken up to heaven, glorified, as the body of Christ, or that of Enoch or Elijah. This last element of the doctrine, the assumption of Mary, has not been formally put forth by Pope or Council, but is propagated and defended in the standard Romanist literature.

Any thoughtful man, considering these doctrines concerning Mary, must see that they made a radical, vital, and fundamental change of the gospel as understood by all Protestants and constitute another gospel, which is not the gospel. It makes the Romanist Church the church of Mary, rather than the church of Christ. Indeed, if we add its traditions concerning the See of Rome and Peter, the name should be: The Romanist Church of the Traditions concerning Mary and Peter. It would be easy to show that each of these elements of doctrine was transferred, for reasons of expediency, from heathen mythology and worship.

The question naturally arises, What scriptures do they cite for these stupendous claims? In support of the perpetual virginity of Mary they cite Ezekiel 44:1-3: "Then he brought me back by way of the outer gate of the sanctuary, which looketh toward the east; and it was shut. And Jehovah said unto me, This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, neither shall any man enter in by it; for Jehovah, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it; therefore it shall be shut. As for the prince, he shall sit therein as prince to eat bread before Jehovah; he shall enter by the way of the porch of the gate, and shall go out by the way of the same." They claim that this language is typical of and applicable to Mary’s perpetual virginity. Some of them quote the Song of Solomon 4:12, as follows: "A garden shut up is my sister, my bride; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed." So far as I know, these are the only scriptures cited that seem to have a positive bearing on the doctrine.

Negatively, they contend that the brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in Mark 6 and other places were not the children of Joseph and Mary, but of Mary’s sister, hence cousins of our Lord. Some Protestants who hold to the perpetual virginity of Mary claim that these were children of Joseph by a former marriage, therefore older than our Lord. Both Romanists and Protestants who hold to this doctrine cite John 19:25-27, where Christ on the cross consigns Mary to John’s are, and argue from this that Mary had no son of her own other than Christ. They forget the extreme poverty of the family of Joseph, including himself, Mary, and all of the children, and that these younger half-brothers of our Lord were not at this time believers in Christ, as is evident from John 7:5. We have already shown that John possessed wealth and a home of his own at Jerusalem, which Mary and her sons did not have.

Of Mary’s freedom from actual sin, they cite the Song of Solomon 4:7: "Thou art all fair, my love; there is no spot in thee," and also from the apocryphal book of Wisdom of Solomon 1:4: "For wisdom will not enter into the malicious soul nor dwell in a body subject to sins."

In support of the theory that Mary mediates between man and Christ, they cite John 2:3, where Mary makes known to her Son the need of wine at the marriage of Cana of Galilee.

To maintain that Mary, not Jesus, bruises the serpent’s head, the Romanist Bible, both the Vulgate and their English version, makes Genesis 3:15 read: "She shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise her heel."

To support the doctrine that Mary is the mother and fountain of all grace to man, they quote Luke 1:28, and render it: "Hail, full of grace!"

In support of the assumption that Mary is the queen of heaven, their commentators cite Revelation 12:1, and claim that it is an allusion to "our blessed lady."

In replying to these various items of Mariology and Mariolatry, it is fairly to be inferred from Matthew 1:25 that Joseph did know Mary as a husband after the birth of Christ, and it certainly best accords with the obvious meaning of Mark 6:3, and various other references, that the four brothers named are real brothers, and not cousins. That Mary was not free from actual sin is evident by our Lord’s rebuke of her at Luke 2:48-49; John 2:4; Mark 3:21 connected with 31-35. There is no scriptural support at all relevant to the matter in hand of Mary’s freedom from original sin. The quotations cited by Romanists are, on their face, irrelevant. The assumption that Mary is the fountain of all grace evidently misinterprets the words of the angel, "Hail, Mary, endued with grace." It is grace then and there conferred, and not original source of grace. It indeed shows that she was a daughter of grace, not its mother. That Mary’s body never saw corruption is a fabrication without any foundation whatever. To make the symbolic woman of Revelation 12:1 to be a real woman, whether Mary or any other woman, is a gross violation of the law of interpretation of symbols. You might just as well make the woman in purple and scarlet riding upon the seven-headed,

THE MEMBERS OF THE HEROD FAMILY NAMED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
Herod himself is "Herod the king" named in Matthew 2:3-19, ruler of the Jews at Christ’s birth. He was surname’ "The Great" and was really a man of great capacity in public affairs, and in diplomacy successfully overreached both Pompey and Julius Caesar, and both Anthony and Augustus Caesar and thwarted Cleopatra, the queen of Egypt. But he was . monster in cruelty and as bloody a tyrant as ever sat upon throne. His father was Antipater, the Idumean or Edomite, and his mother an Ishmaelite. Thus in the person of Herod, Ishmael and Esau sat upon the throne of Isaac and Jacob. His death is recorded in Matthew 2. He had about ten wives and many children. By his last will, subject to Rome’s approval, he divided his realm among three sons, disinheriting all his other children whom he had not murdered.

His children. Archelaus, named in Matthew 2:22, his son by his fourth wife, was, according to Herod’s will, made king of Judea and Samaria. Rome did not approve of his title of king, but allowed him to be called ethnarch for nine years, and then for good cause removed and banished him, and converted Judea and Samaria into an imperial province under procurators appointed by Caesar. Pontius Pilate, an appointee of Tiberius Caesar, was procurator during the years of our Lord’s public ministry.

Another son, Herod Antipas, older brother of Archelaus, by the same mother, was made tetrarch of Galilee and Perea. (See Luke 3:1.) This was the Herod that beheaded John the Baptist (Mark 6:17-29), whom Jesus called "that fox," and to whom our Lord was sent for trial by Pilate. He held his office during the whole of our Lord’s life after his return from Egypt. He built the city of Tiberias on the sea of Galilee, and was the second husband of that Herodias who caused the death of John the Baptist. This marriage was a threefold sin - his own wife was yet living, the woman’s husband was yet living, and she was his niece.

The oldest surviving son of Herod was named Herod Philip, disinherited by his father. He lived at Rome. The New Testament makes only an indirect allusion to him as Philip the brother of Herod Antipas, and the husband of Herodias (Mark 6:17-18).

Herod’s son by his fifth wife was also named Herod Philip, and he is the tetrarch of the Northern part of Palestine, called in Luke 3:1 "the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis." He built the cities of Bethsaida-Julius, and Caesarea Philippi. He was the best of all the ruling sons of Herod.

It must be noted how several movements of our Lord were affected by these three sons of Herod. Because of Archelaus his parents took him from Judea to Galilee. Because of the unfriendliness of Herod Antipas he more than once removed from Galilee to the tetrarchy of Herod Philip. This Herod Philip, the tetrarch, married Salome, the dancing girl, who danced off the head of John the Baptist (Mark 6:2-28). She was his niece, the daughter of his brother, Herod Philip I, named above.

Herod’s grandchildren. First, Herod Agrippa 1. This is Herod the king, of Acts 12:1-4, who killed the apostle James, John’s brother, and imprisoned Peter, and whose awful death at Caesarea is described in Acts 12:19-23. This Herod ruled over all Palestine like his grandfather.

Second, Herodias, the wicked woman who left her husband, Philip, and married his brother, Herod Antipas, and brought about the death of John the Baptist because he denounced the iniquitous marriage (Mark 6:17-28). It is said that when the head of John was brought to her by her daughter, she drove her bodkin through the faithful tongue that had dared to denounce the infamy of her marriage.

Herod’s great grandchildren. First, Salome, the dancing girl named in Mark 6. Second, Herod Agrippa II. This is the titular king, Agrippa, before whom Paul spoke (Acts 25:13). Third, Bernice, his sister (Acts 25:23). Fourth, Drusilla, another sister, who married Festus (Acts 24:24). Of these the last six named were descended through Herod’s second wife, Mariarnne, the Maccabean princess.

THE NEW TESTAMENT AND CAESAR
As in the Old Testament "Pharaoh" is a title of all the Egyptian rulers, so always in the New Testament "Caesar" is a title of the Roman ruler. In the New Testament about twenty-seven times "Caesar" is so used, without the name of the particular Caesar. Twelve Caesars ruled at Rome from the birth of Christ to the close of the canon of the New Testament, and perhaps one more, Trajan, when John the apostle died. The names of the twelve in order, and the dates of their reigns, are as follows:

Augustus 31 B.C. to A.D. 14

Tiberius A.D. 14-37

Gaius A.D. 37-41

Claudius A.D. 41-54

Nero A.D. 54-68

Galba A.D. 68-69

Otho A.D. 69

Vitellius A.D. 69

Vespasian A.D. 69-79

Titus A.D. 79-81

Domitian A.D. 81-96

Nerva A.D. 96-98

Three of these are named in the New Testament: Augustus, Luke 2:1; Tiberius, Luke 3:1; Claudius, Acts 11:28; Acts 18:2. Nero is referred to but not named (Acts 25:8).

QUESTIONS

1. What sections of Matthew and Luke are devoted to our Lord’s early life?

2. What are the incidents given in Matthew?

3. In Luke?

4. From whose viewpoint is written all this section of Matthew?

5. From whose viewpoint Luke’s section?

6. How does this account for the apparent discrepancy between their genealogies?

7. How does Paul characterize the incarnation of our Lord?

8. What passage from Isaiah does Matthew quote and apply to the incarnation?

9. What name of the child does Matthew give as expressive of the mystery?

10. What other passage from Isaiah gives names of the child expressive of this mystery?

11. How does the angel, in Luke, explain the mystery of a virgin becoming a mother and the resultant nature of the child?

12. Give Mark’s name of this wonderful child.

13. How does Paul state the matter?

14. How does such a son escape hereditary depravity?

15. How does this alone fulfil the first gospel promise in Genesis?

16. According to Paul, what is the relation of Adam to Jesus? (See last clause of Romans 5:14.)

17. Give in brief Paul’s argument on this relation in Romans 5:12-21. Ans. As through one trespass (not many) of one man (not one woman) sin, condemnation and death came upon all his fleshly descendants. So through one act of righteousness (death on the cross) of one man (the vicarious Substitute) justification, unto eternal life came upon all his spiritual descendants.

18. How does Paul further contrast the first Adam and his image transmitted to his fleshly descendants with the Second Adam and his image borne by his spiritual descendants? (See 1 Corinthians 15:45-49.)

19. What then may we say of this miracle of the incarnation?

20. Give the significant Bible usage of the phrase "The book of the generation."

21. Contrast the account of our Lord’s infancy and childhood, given by Matthew and Luke, with the human inventions of traditions concerning the same period.

22. What two sentences of Luke, one concerning the development of his childhood, the other concerning his development into manhood, give the record of most of our Lord’s earthly life?

23. What other sentence of Luke tells the whole story of his obedience to the Fifth Commandment?

24. What phrase of Luke discloses a religious habit of all his early life?

25. What question recorded by Mark reveals his occupation in all that early life?

26. What may we gather from the history of his subsequent life, as to his studies, observation and general information?

27. As to his literary attainments, how do you prove that he knew and spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?

28. How should you commence Matthew’s genealogy (allowing him self to supplement) and Luke’s (allowing Paul to supplement)?

29. In the two accounts of our Lord’s birth and infancy are eight annunciations, with eight other supernatural events, adapted in time, place, medium, means, and circumstances to the several recipients: give them, in order, and then show which three came by vision, which five by dreams, which one by the Holy Spirit, which one by an unborn babe, and which four by inspiration.

30. In Luke’s account alone are five historic hymns, or the foundations from which they were developed. Name them in order.

31. Give the substance of the gospel teaching concerning Mary.

32. Give the several items of the monstrous Mariology and blasphemous Mariolatry developed by Romanists from the simple Bible story of Mary, and the scriptural proof they cite for each, and your reply thereto.

33. If we add to this Mariolatry its inventions concerning the See of Rome and Peter, what should this church be called?

34. Name the member of the Herod family mentioned in the New Testament, citing the passage in each case, and the relationship to Herod the Great, and which of these were descendents of Mariamne, the Maccabean princess?

35. How does the New Testament use the term “Caesar?”

36. How many Caesars ruled at Rome from the birth of Christ to the close of the New Testament canon?

37. Which three are named in the New Testament and where, and which other alluded to and where?

38. It is supposed that John lived to the close of the first century A.D. then what other Caesar must you add to the twelve?

VI

BEGINNINGS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE (CONTINUED)

Scriptures same as for chapter V.

MATTHEW’S Genealogy.

There are three notable peculiarities in Matthew’s genealogy. The first is, he commences with the rare phrase, "The book of the generation," found nowhere else except in Genesis 5:1-3, concerning the first Adam. The uniqueness of this peculiarity and the correspondence between Matthew 1:1 and Genesis 5:1, are of evident design. The proof of the design appears from Paul’s discussion of the matter. First, Paul says there are two Adams, the first a figure or type of the Second (Romans 5:14). The first was created; the Second was the only begotten Son. In Romans 5 Paul adds that as through one trespass of one man (the first Adam), sin, condemnation and death came upon all his descendants, so through one act of righteousness (on the cross) of one man, the Second Adam, justification unto eternal life came upon his descendants. The parallel or contrast between the two Adams he further discusses thus: "So also it is written, the first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. Howbeit, that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly."

The second peculiarity of Matthew’s genealogy consists in his division of the time from Abraham to Christ into three periods thus: From the patriarchy (or family rule in Abraham) , to the theocracy (or national rule at Sinai); second, From Abraham to David; from David to the captivity; from the captivity to Christ. Some have managed to find a difficulty in Matthew’s making three sets of fourteen with only forty-one names. But Matthew does not say that there were three sets of fourteen names, but three sets of fourteen generations. The generations here, as many times elsewhere, mean time periods. It is about equivalent to saying from Abraham to the earthly monarchy, first period; from the earthly monarchy to its downfall, second period; from the downfall of the earthly monarchy to the coming of the spiritual King, third period.

This period division suits Matthew’s plan as the book of the King. David, the typical king, is the central figure of three periods, which terminate in the antitypical or spiritual King. Matthew does not give every name, but according to the established method of Bible genealogies, he sometimes passes over a son to the grandson.

Another writer, with a different plan, might make four periods thus: From the patriarchy (or family rule in Abraham), to the theocracy (or national rule at Sinai); second, from the theocracy to the beginning of the monarchy; third, from the beginning of the monarchy to the hierarchy (or high priest rule); fourth, from the hierarchy to Jesus, the true Patnarches, Theos, basileus, hiereus.

Matthew’s third peculiarity is, that contrary to Jewish custom, he names four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba. As they are not named in the list of fourteen’s, they must be named in this connection for other reasons. Two facts suggest the probable reason for naming these women. First, three of the four at least were Gentiles, and quite possibly the fourth. Tamar and Rahab were Canaanites, Ruth was a Moabite, Bathsheba, the wife of a Hittite, was a granddaughter of Ahithophel, the Gilonite, and counsellor of David, who sided with Absalom, and afterward hanged himself. It is true that Giloh, his home city, was one of the mountain cities assigned to Judah at the conquest, but that does not prove that all of its inhabitants were Jews. Ahithophel does not act as a Jew, but with many other foreigners he accepted office under David. Eliam, otherwise Ammiel, his son, and father of Bathsheba, with Uriah, another foreigner, was one of David’s mighty men. Bathsheba herself does not act like a Jewess, for she married a Hittite, Uriah, the war comrade of her father. So she probably, as the other three women certainly, was a Gentile. The ending "ite," as in Gilonite, usually, not always, indicates a Gentile tribe or nation.

The second fact is that only one of the four, Ruth the Moabite, was chaste in life. Tamar, in the garb of harlot, deceived her father-in-law, Judah. Rahab was an open harlot in Jericho, and Bathsheba was an adulteress. The fact of four such maternal ancestors seems to prophesy, in a way, that their coming illustrious Descendant would preach a gospel of mercy to the foreigner and to the fallen.

Some writers have wasted much energy in endeavoring to reconcile Luke’s genealogy with Matthew’s. There is not the slightest reason to attempt it.

Matthew gives our Lord’s legal descent through Joseph’. Luke gives his real descent through Mary. As both Joseph and Mary were descendants of Abraham and David, they will in part coincide and in part diverge. The extent of the coincidence or the divergence is immaterial.

THE ANNUNCIATION TO ZACHARIAS – Luke 1:5-25

We have already seen that there were eight annunciations, as follows: To Zacharias, Mary, Joseph, Elisabeth, the shepherds, Simeon, Mary again by Simeon, and the magi. Some of these were by the angel Gabriel, some by the Holy Spirit and one by astronomical phenomenon. It is noteworthy that in every case the time, medium, place, and matter of the announcement are all adapted to the recipient and his or her circumstances. Just here we may note the contrast in the Bible between the offices of the angel Gabriel, and of the arch-angel Michael. Gabriel is sent always on missions of mercy; Michael always for the defense of God’s people, for war and vengeance on their enemies.

In the announcement to Zacharias the time is in the days of Herod the king, the scene is the Temple at Jerusalem, the place is the sanctuary or holy place, the hour is the time of the daily sacrifice. The circumstances of this announcement are: Zacharias, as priestly mediator, is burning the incense at the golden altar in the holy place, while the people outside are offering up the prayers represented by the incense. Twice every day, morning and evening, the people thus come to the Temple at the hour of prayer. (Compare Acts 3:1.) Being only a priest, Zacharias could not enter the most holy place; his ministrations stopped at the veil which hides the mercy seat, which is entered only once a year by the high priest on the great day of atonement (Lev. 16). The offering of the incense was the highest honor that could come to a priest, and as it was determined by lot, it might not come more than once in a lifetime to the same man. The perpetuity of these mediatorial ministrations was secured by dividing the descendants of Aaron into twenty-four courses, with fixed dates for one course to relieve another. As we see from the text, Zacharias belonged to the course of Abijah, which was the eighth. This division of the priests into courses was established by David, as we learn from I Chronicles 24. Zacharias himself had a burden. His wife was barren, and both were now old. While burning the incense which represented the prayers of the people, he himself was praying for a son. The medium of the announcement to him was the angel Gabriel, who comes with an answer to his prayer while he is yet praying, as he had come on another great occasion to Daniel (Daniel 9:20-21) The means was a vision. The matter was that not only would a son be born to him and Elisabeth, but his son would be a Nazirite, great in the sight of God, full of the Spirit from his mother’s womb, the forerunner of the Messiah, to make ready a people prepared for him according to prophecy, in the spirit and power of Elijah, turning many of the children of Israel to God and turning the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the disobedient to the justified. This, like the honor conferred on Mary, was unique, occurring only once in the world’s history.

Zacharias was filled with unbelief because of the natural difficulties on account of the impotency of his age and the barrenness of his wife. Why did he not consider the similar cases of Abraham and Sarah, of Isaac and Rebecca, and the case of Hannah, the mother of Samuel? Zacharias might have known from these illustrious incidents of the past history of his people, that the supernatural can overcome the natural. Because of his hesitation to believe the words of the angel, a sign was given unto him – he should be dumb until the promise was fulfilled.

THE ANNUNCIATION TO MARY

The time is six months later than the annunciation to Zacharias.

The place is Mary’s home at Nazareth.

The medium is the same angel, Gabriel.

The matter is that she shall bear a Son, named Jesus, who shall also see the Son of the Most High, and who shall sit on the throne of his father David, ruling over an everlasting kingdom.

The explanation of the prodigy of a birth without a human sire is, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee." Because also, God, not man, is the sire, this offspring shall be “holy” in nature, and shall be called the Son of God. In all the human race this is "the Only begotten of the Father," and hence the only one born in the world without hereditary depravity.

In this way only could be fulfilled the first gospel promise, "the seed of the woman [not of the man] shall bruise the serpent’s head." Had he been the seed of the man he would have been born condemned on account of a depraved nature. He could not have saved himself, much less others. It is true "he was made under the law," but not under its condemnation on his own account. Since he was born holy by nature, and never sinned in practice, and obeyed all its requirements, the law could not condemn him except as a legal substitute for real sinners. It is this that made his death under God’s law vicarious (Isaiah 53:4-12). So that one who rejects his birth of a virgin rejects the whole plan of salvation and the whole. Bible as the word of God. On this point there is not space for compromise as large as the point of a cambric needle, nor as broad as the edge of a razor.

When a man says "NO" to the question, "Do you believe our Lord was born of a virgin?" you need not ask him any other question whatever. And if he says, "Yes," to this incarnation of God, the one supreme miracle, he need not quibble at any other in the gospel record.

This one conceded, the others come like a conqueror, and from necessity. Luke 1:34-35 is the crux, pivot, hinge, and citadel of all controversies on the joined issue, Natural vs. Supernatural; Atheism vs. Christianity. We have already called attention to the monstrous system of Mariology fruiting in Mariolatry. The base of it all is in the angel’s salutation to Mary: "Hail thou that art highly favored – thou that hast favor with God." It is a matter of translation. Shall we render "highly favored" (Greek, kecharitomene) "mother of grace," or "daughter of grace"? Does it mean "fountain of grace," or "endued with grace," i.e., grace conferred or found"? A Pope has said that Mary is the mother and fountain of all grace and our only hope of salvation.

MARY’S VISIT TO ELISABETH

Here we note the reason of Mary’s visit. The angel had informed her of Elisabeth’s condition. In all the world, Elisabeth was the only being to whom the modest Mary could confide her own extraordinary condition. She needed a woman’s sympathy and support. Never before and never again could two such women meet to confer concerning their unique motherhood. In all the history of the race only one woman could be the mother of the harbinger of our Lord, and only one be the mother of our Lord. The honors conferred on them were very high, and could never be repeated. As with the mothers, so with the sons.

They would forever stand apart from all other men – each without a model, without a shadow, without a successor. The visit lasted three months. What the continuation of the intercommunion and holy confidences, what the mutual womanly sympathy and support in these three months we may infer from the beginning.

At the salutation of Mary, -two mighty tokens of recognition came upon Elisabeth. The babe in her womb, the babe who was to be full of the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb, leaped for joy. Upon her also came the power of God and she herself was full of the Holy Spirit. She was thus prepared to give the greeting her visitor most needed to confirm her faith in the embarrassing circumstances of her novel situation: "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a fulfilment of the things which have been spoken unto her from the Lord." After such greeting, the chastity and modesty of the virgin could no more be embarrassed, but upon her came a flame of inspiration that kindled that great song

THE MAGNIFICAT
On this first Christian hymn, note:

Its correspondence with the Old Testament hymn of Hannah, the mother of Samuel (1 Samuel 2:1-10). Hannah’s song is the model of Mary’s. The correspondence is as remarkable in the circumstances as in the matter of the song. Israel under Eli had been brought very low. The barren Hannah prayed for a child and promised that she would dedicate him to Jehovah as long as he lived. Her illustrious son was the last of the judges and the first of the prophets. He reformed Israel and established the monarchy in David. What a solemn historic lesson, God’s preparation of the mothers of the good and the great, and the devil’s preparation of the mothers of the monsters of vice and cruelty! Compare the mothers of Augustine, Washington, Andrew Jackson, S. S. Prentiss, with the mother of Nero. To the question, Where should the education of a child commence, Oliver Wendell Holmes replied, "With his grandmother." Think of the faith of Timothy, "which was first in his grandmother, Lois, and in his mother, Eunice "

Note the three divisions of Mary’s hymn: First as it relates to herself (Luke 1:46-49). Second, as it relates to God’s moral government of the world (Luke 1:50-53). Third, as it relates to Israel (Luke 1:54-55). The blessing on the individual Christian widens into a blessing on the people of God, and enlarges into a blessing on the world. How minute in application, how comprehensive in scope, and how correlated in all its parts, is God’s moral government of the universe!

Dr. Lyman Beecher, the greatest of all the Beechers, when asked, "How long were you in preparing your great sermon on ’God’s Moral Government’ ?" replied, "Forty years." While the hearers were astounded at the greatness of his production, he himself lamented the short time for preparation. Note the expression in Luke 1:50, "and his mercy is unto generations and generations of them that fear him," and mark its origin and import in the Old Testament, to wit: While he visits the iniquity of the fathers on their children to the third and fourth generation, he visits his mercy to the thousandth generation on the children of them that fear him.

THE BIRTH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST – Luke 1:57-66
Observe the naming of a Hebrew child at his circumcision. Hence pedobaptists, contending that baptism comes in the place of circumcision, name the child at its baptism and call it "christening."

The great homiletical theme: "What then shall this child be?" (Luke 1:66.)

The inspired song of the father. This is called THE BENEDICTUS from the first word, "blessed." This is the second Christian hymn. It is divided into two distinct parts:

First, the ascription of praise to God for his continued mercy to his covenant people, Israel, according to promise and prophecy from Abraham’s day (Luke 1:68-75).

This promise was messianic – "to raise up a horn of salvation in the house of David," "horn" meaning a king or kingdom of power, as in Daniel’s apocalypses, and in Revelation. Daniel 8:3, the ram with two horns of unequal length, represented Persia united with Media. Daniel 8:5-9, the one "notable horn" of the he-goat was Alexander the Great, and the "four horns" his four successors. The "little horn" rising later was Antiochus Epiphanes. Daniel 7:7-8, the "ten horns" of this fourth beast were the ten kingdoms into which the fallen Roman empire was divided, and the "little horn" was the papacy.

So when Zacharias says, "Thou hast raised up a horn of salvation in the house of David," it means the Messiah, David’s greater Son. One of the prophecies to which Zacharias refers is 2 Samuel 7:12-13, with which compare Isaiah II. It is evident, therefore, that Zacharias speaks his benediction on God because of spiritual messianic mercies.

The second part of the benediction (Luke 1:76-79) is spoken to his son, John, because of his relation to the Messiah of the first part. John was to be (1) the prophet of the Most High. (2) He was to go before the coming Messiah and prepare the way for him. (3) His ministry was to give the people "The knowledge of salvation in the remission of their sins." We shall have much use later for this last item, when we devote a special chapter to John the Baptist, defining his place in the Christian system.

For the present we note that a true disciple of John was saved. He had "knowledge" of his salvation. This knowledge is experimental since it came through the remission of sins. We are not surprised, therefore, that his candidates for baptism "confessed their sins," nor that his baptism was "of repentance unto remission of sins," as Peter preached at Pentecost (Acts 2:38) and was in harmony with our Lord’s great commission given in his gospel: "Repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all nations beginning at Jerusalem" (Luke 24:47).

"The Dayspring from on High" (Luke 1:78) is our Lord himself, the Sun of righteousness, in the dawn of his rising.

QUESTIONS

1. What is the first peculiarity of Matthew’s genealogy?

2. Give proof that this correspondence with Genesis 5:1 was designed.

3. His second peculiarity?

4. Explain three sets of fourteen with only forty-one names.

5. How might another writer, with a different plan, divide the three from Abraham to Christ into four periods, and give their fulfilment in Christ in four Greek names?

6. Matthew’s third peculiarity, and account for it?

7. How do you reconcile Luke’s genealogy with Matthew’*?

8. Including Paul’s contributions, how should Luke’s genealogy com mence? Ans. Jesus himself, the Second Adam, who was the Lord from heaven (supposed son of Joseph) was the son of Heli.

9. Including a statement from Matthew himself, how should his genealogy commence? Ans. "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, called Immanuel (God with us), the son of David, the son of Abraham."

10. How many annunciations, to whom, by whom or what, and how?

11. How are all these annunciations adapted to the receivers?

12. Contrast the respective missions of Gabriel and Michael.

13. In the annunciation to Zacharias, give time, scene, place, medium, means, and circumstances.

14. Where was the golden altar of incense, the brazen altar of sacrifice, what was their relation to each other, and what was the doctrine?

Ans. The brazen altar of sacrifice was in the outer court, the golden altar of incense in the holy place before the veil hiding the mercy seat in the most holy place. The relation was that expiatory sacrifice must precede offering up incense representing prayer based on expiation. First expiation of sin, then prayer. The incense was kindled by fire from the brazen altar. To kindle the incense with other fire was punished with death (see Leviticus 10:1-11; Numbers 3:4; Numbers 26:61; 1 Chronicles 24:2). The doctrine is that prayer must be offered in the name of Jesus the expiatory victim.

15. Why should the people offer their prayers through the medium of a priest? Ans. Being sinners they must approach God through a mediator.

16. Who these mediators? Ans. The sons of Aaron.

17. How was perpetuity in mediation secured and by whom established?

18. Of which course of the twenty-four was Zacharias?

19. Why could not Zacharias offer the incense in the most holy place, who alone could, and when?

20. What prayer did Zacharias offer for himself, was it answered, and how?

21. Crucial test question: Is it the design of prayer to influence God or merely to reflexively influence the petitioner? (Before you answer read Matthew 7:7-11; Luke 18:1-14; John 16:23-24; and the author’s interpretation of the trumpets of Revelation 8:2-10:1. See his book on Revelation, pp. 131-159.)

22. Give time, place, medium, means, and matter of the annunciation to Mary.

23. How does the angel explain a virgin’s giving birth to a child?

24. How does such a birth alone fulfill the first gospel promise?

25. How does it insure the child against hereditary depravity?

26. What three proofs must be made in order that Jesus escape condemnation on his own account? Ans. (1) He must be born holy – holy in nature. (2) He must be free from actual sin in life. (3) He must perfectly obey all the law.

27. These proofs conceded, then if he yet be condemned and die, what follows? Ans. His death was vicarious – a substitute for sinners (Isaiah 53:4-12).

28. What then is the effect of denying the virgin birth of our Lord?

29. What is the virtual relation of the incarnation to all other miracles?

30. How then must we regard Luke 1:34-35?

31. What is the base of all the Romanist Mariolatry?

32. Does the Greek word rendered "endued with grace," convey the idea that Mary was the mother of grace or a daughter of grace – in other words, that she is the fountain of all grace or the subject of grace conferred?

33. What has a Pope said of Mary?

34. Why did Mary visit Elisabeth?

35. How was it announced to Elisabeth that the mother of our Lord was present?

36. How naturally would Elisabeth’s inspired response comfort and confirm the modest virgin?

THE MAGNIFICAT

37. What is its Old Testament model?

38. What historic lesson suggested, and illustrate.

39. Point out the three divisions of Mary’s hymn.

40. Who preached a great sermon illustrating the second division?

41. What is the origin and meaning of "unto generations and generations" v.50?

BIRTH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST

42. On what occasion did Hebrews name their male children and why do pedobaptists in imitation christen their children?

43. What great sermon theme here?

THE BENEDICTUS

44. Why song of Zacharias, so called?

45. What two divisions of the song?

46. What the nature of the first part and the relation of second thereto?

47. Meaning of "horn of salvation in the house of David"? Illustrate by "horn" from Daniel and cite two pertinent Old Testament messianic promises.

48. What three things in the second part of the Benedictua said of John the Baptist?

49. What does the last prove of a true disciple of John?