Here a difficidt question arises — How is John's ac- knowledgment of Jesus at the moment of his presenting himself for baptism compatible with his subsequent as- sertion that he knew him not save by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him, which took place after his bap- tism '? It is difficult to imagine that the two cousins did not personally recognise each other, from their close relationship, and the account which John could not have failed to receive of the remarkable circumstances attend- ing Jesus's birth ; hence his general deference at that time, but his explicit testimony subsequently (see Kui- nol, Alford, Comment, on PJatt. iii, 14). The supposition that John was not personal!}' acquainted with Jesus is therefore out of the question (see Llicke, Comment, on John i, 31). Yet it must be home in mind that their places of residence were at the two extremities of the countn,-, with but little means of communication be- tween them. Perhaps, too, John's special destination and mode of life may have kept him from the stated festivals of his countrymen at Jerusalem. It is possi- ble, therefore, that the Saviour and the Baptist had not often met. It was certainly of the utmost impor- tance that there should be no suspicion of concert or collusion between them. John, liowever, must assured- ly have been in daily expectation of Christ's manifesta- tion to Israel, and so a word or sign woidd have sufficed to reveal to him the person and presence of our Lord, though we may well suppose such a fact to be made known by a direct communication from God, as in the case of Simeon (Luke ii, 26 ; comp. Jackson on the Creed, Works, Oxf. ed. vi, 404). At all events, it is wholly in- conceivable that John should have been permitted to
JOHN"
958
JOHN"
baptize the Son of God wthout being enabled to distin- fjuish him from any of the ordinary multitude. Upon the whole, the true meaning of the words /c«yw ovk ijciii' avTuv would seem to be as follows : And I, even I, though standing in so near a relation to him, both per- sonally and ministerially, had no assured knowledge of him (IS the Messiah. I did not know him, and I had not authority to proclaim him as such tiU I saw the pre- dicted sign in the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him. It must be borne in mind that John had no means of knowing by i)revious announcement whether this won- derful acknowledgment of the di\ine Son would be vouchsafed to his forerunner at his baptism or at any other time (see Dr. Mill's Hist. Character of St. Luke's Gospel, and the authorities quoted by him). See Bap- tism OF Jesus.
With the baptism of Jesus John's more especial office ceased. The king had come to his kingdom. The function of the herald was discharged. It was this that John had with lingular humility and self-renunciation announced beforehand : '• He must increase, but I must decrease." It seems but natural to think, therefore, when their hitherto relative position is taken into ac- count, that John would forthwiih lay down his office of liarbinger, which, now that the Sun of Eighteousness himself had appeared, was entirely fulfilled and termi- nated. Such a step he does not appear to have taken. From incidental notices w-e learn that John and his dis- ciples continued to baptize some time after our Lord en- tered upon his ministrj' (see John iii, 2.3; iv, 1). We gatlier also that John instructed his disciples in certain moral and religious duties, as fasting (Matt, ix, 14; Luke v,33) and prayer (Luke xi, 1). In short, the lan- gu-ige of Scripture seems to imply that the Baptist Church continued side by side with the I^lessiaaic (Matt, xi, 3 ; Luke vii, 19 ; John xiv, 25), and remained long after John's execution (Acts xix, 3). Indeed, a sect which bears the name of "'John's disciples" exists to the present day in the East, whose sacred books are said to be pervaded by a Gnostic leaven. (See Gese- nius, in the .1 l/r/mi. Literaturzeitung, 1817, No. 48, p. 378, and in the 1 1 nil. /,'//«■//,/,;)., probeheft, p. 95 sq.; Burck- hardt. Lis .V,iy„p. ,i,/s u/n/les Zabicns ei Chretiens de iSf. Jean, secle (/uK^trjiir, Strasb. 1840; also Biarkey, in the Jiihl. IIa<j. i V, 35c S(i. ; SchaflF, A post. Hist. p. 279 sq.) . See Joiix, St., CimisTiAxs of. They are hostile alike to Judaism and Christianity, and their John and Jesus are altogether ditfercnt from the characters bearing these names in our evangelists. StUl, though it has been generally assumed that John did not lay down his of- fice, we are not satisfied that the New Testament estab- lishes this alleged fact. John may have ceased to exe- cute his own peculiar work as the forerunner, but may justifiably have continued to boar his most important testimony to the Jlessiahship of Christ ; or he may even have altogether given up the duties of active life some time, at least, before his death; and yet his disciples, both bef.jre and after that event, may have maintained their individu;dity as a religious communion. Nor will the student of the New Testament and of ecclesiastical history, wiio knows how grossly a teacher far greater than John was, both during his life and after his cruci- fixion, misunderstood and misrepresented, think it im- possible that some misconception or some sinister motive may have iiad weight in preventing the Baptist Church (roin dissolving and passing into that of Christ. (See \\ ebcr, ./. d. Tdiifer uiid die Parteien seiner Zeit, Gotha, 18. 0.) It was, not improbably, with a view to remove s.)me error of this kind that John sent the embassv of his disciples to .Jesus which is recorded in Matt, xi, 3 ; Luke vii, 19. The spiritual course which the teachings ol Jesus were more and more taking, and the apparent allure, or at least uneasy postponement of the promised kingdom in the popular sense, especially after their es- teemed master lay in prison, and was in imminent dan- ger of ,,smg his Ufe, may well have led John's disciples to (U.ubt il Jesus were in truth the expected Messiah;