17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my 17 him; and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, 'This beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. is my beloved Son, in whom I an: well pleased.

1 Or, This is my Son; my beloved in whom I am well pleased. See ch. xii. 18.

suggestive, while a dove's manner of descend- | heaven-rather, the heavens, plural, as in ing is hardly so peculiar and striking that a the preceding verse (see on v. 2). So Mark, mere resemblance to it in movement would while Luke uses the singular. We also often have been carefully recorded by each of the say 'heaven' and 'the heavens' indifferently. Evangelists. It seems therefore reasonable | The Talmud has many stories of a voice from to adhere to the ancient opinion (Justin heaven, coming to decide questions, to comMartyr, Origen, Chrys., and others), that the mend certain teachers, etc., and calls it Bath Spirit descended in the form of a dove. It kol, 'daughter of a voice,' perhaps meaning has been often repeated that a Rabbinical in- a faint sound as if coming from a great disterpretation of Gen. 1: 2, likens the Spirit of tance. See Lf., Gill, Wünsche. Edersh. inGod 'brooding upon the face of the waters' sists that there is no real analogy between the to a dove. But Edersh., Vol. I., p. 287, quite Bath kol and this voice from heaven. There explains this away, and also states that the is no intrinsic objection to the idea of a reTargum on Song 2: 12, which declares the semblance. Here also, as in v. 16, we see voice of the turtle' to be the voice of the that revelation adapts its choice of a form Holy Spirit, dates considerably later than the to the popular mind. Other instances of a Talmud. So there seems to be no ground for voice from heaven, see in John 12: 28; and the Jewish claim, that this appearance of a to a certain extent in Matthew 17: 5; Acts 9: dove has earlier Rabbinical parallels. Yet if 4; Rev. 1: 10. Comp. Acts 2: 2. This is. the claim were well supported, it would not Mark 1: 11 (according to the best authorities be surprising. We recognize it as one of the for the text) and Luke 3: 22, have 'Thou art excellencies of the Scriptures, that the form my beloved son, in thee,' etc. Of course, it of the revelation is constantly in accordance cannot be that both of these are the words with the modes of conception natural to man, actually spoken. As to the authenticity of and even sometimes conformed to the peculiar the narrative, such slight and wholly unways of thinking of the people chosen to re-important variations really confirm it, beceive it. Comp. on 7: 3-5. Morison quotes Varenius as saying, "It was not as an eagle, but as a dove; an animal corresponding among birds to the lamb among beasts." And lighting, or coming, upon him. It was idle to translate the plain 'coming' by 'lighting.' The Baptizer afterwards testified (John 1: 32) that it abode,' or 'remained, on him,' i. e., probably for some time, thus symbolizing the great fact that the Mediator was to be henceforth permanently and peculiarly in union with and under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Accordingly we find immediately after (4:1) that Jesus is said to be 'led up by the Spirit,' etc. (Comp. John 3: 34.) The coming of the Spirit upon our Lord was so very peculiar in its relation to his office, that we are scarcely warranted in taking it as the ground of a petition that the Spirit would bless any ordinary baptismal occasion. Such a blessing should be fervently sought, but hardly on this ground. 17. And lo! a voice from1-out of

ing precisely such as always occur in the independent testimony of different witnesses. As to the complete inspiration of the Scriptures, we must accept it as one of the facts of the case that the inspired writers not unfrequently report merely the substance of what was said, without aiming to give the exact words. So, for example, at the institution of the Supper (26: 26 ff.), in Gethsemane (26: 39 fr.), in the inscription on the cross (27:37), etc. In some instances of such variation we may suppose that the exact expressions given by the different writers were all employed in the connection, but in other cases that hypothesis is unwarranted. While such facts as these should make us cautious in theorizing as to verbal inspiration, they do not require us to lay aside the belief that the inspiration of Scripture is complete, that the inspired writers have every where told us just what God would have us know.

The words spoken are the same that were

1 Tyndale and followers translated apo by ‘out of' in v. 16, and ek by 'from' in v. 17.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL.

KEIL: "The baptism of Jesus the culmination of John's ministry, and the beginning of that of Jesus." EWALD: "The birth-hour of Christianity." Unknown in Aquinas: "As when the morning star has risen, the sun does not wait for that star to set, but rising as it goes forward, gradually obscures its brightness; so Christ waited not for John to finish his course, but appeared while he yet taught."

uttered on the Mount of Transfiguration. | testify at the proper time. (17:9.)-Apocryphal (17:5; 2 Pet. 1: 17.) The person referred to was writers in the second and third centuries known in that case by the transfigured ap- make fanciful additions to this account, as pearance, and here by the descent of the dove that a great light shone round the place, that upon him. The Greek is more emphatic: a fire was kindled in the Jordan (perhaps a 'this is my son, the beloved.'-There is no fancy wrought out of 3: 11), and that the propriety in saying, with some expositors, that voice added, 'I to-day have begotten thee.' 'beloved' signifies 'only begotten.' As applied to our Lord, the two terms are to a certain extent equivalent, and they are sometimes confounded by the Sept. translators, but there is of course, a distinction between them. In whom I am-or, was-well pleased, or, ‘in whom I delighted.' The tense of the verb may be understood as denoting what took place at some indefinite past time, and from the nature of the case still holds good; as in 23: 2, literally, The Scribes and the Pharisees sat down in Moses' seat,' and so are sitting there now-where in English we should say, 'have sat down.' (So Winer, 278 [347], Buttm., 198.) If this view be adopted, the rendering of the Common Version expresses the substantial meaning pretty well. But the Greek tense more naturally denotes some past time, to be determined from the connection, from the nature of the case, or from other teachings of Scripture. The time here referred to might be that indicated by Ps. 2:7; by Isa. 42: 1 (which is perhaps alluded to here, and is quoted below in 12: 18); also by John 17: 24; Eph. 1: 4. In the depths of eternity, before creation began, God loved, delighted in, his Eternal Son; and now at the baptism and the transfiguration, he bears witness to him, alluding to such declarations as the above, and saying: This is my Son, the beloved, in whom my soul delighted.' This latter explanation is perhaps preferable, but it is hard to decide; and both agree as to the main resulting sense, that the Father delights in him now. This declaration might make more real to the human mind of Jesus that peculiar sonship to God of which he had in childhood already indicated consciousness. (Luke 2: 49.) Such a view connects itself (Calvin) with the fact that he was praying (Luke 3: 21, 22) when the voice came. It was also a commendation of him to John, who soon after bore witness before all (John 1:34) that this is the Son of God'; just as at the transfiguration the voice came to the three disciples also, who were to

V. 13. Importance of Baptism: Not as carrying with it regeneration, or procuring remission, but 1) an imitation of Christ's example; 2) an act of Christ's own appointment 28: 19; 3) an oath of allegiance to Christ, 'in the name'; 4) a symbol of purification from sin through Christ, Acts 22: 16; 5) a symbol of burial and resurrection in union with Christ, Rom. 6:4. V. 14. How often are well-meant but utterly mistaken efforts made to dissuade persons from what is entirely right. Such efforts frequently proceed, as here, from the misapplication of something that is true. John's twofold difficulty (comp. Lange); 1) to baptize the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were unworthy of his baptism; 2) To baptize Jesus, of whom his baptism was unworthy.-John's baptism highly honored: 1) It was of divine appointment, John 1: 33; 2) It gave name to his whole work, 'the baptism of John' (21:25), John the Baptizer; 3) It was received by great multitudes; 4) Even the Saviour submitted to it; 5) Jesus baptized on like conditions, John 3: 22; 4: 1, 2; Mark 1:14).

V. 15. Here for the first time in this Gospel our Lord presents an example to us. Let us be careful in all that follows to seek his footsteps and learn to walk in them. (1 Pet. 2: 21; 1 John 2: 6; 1 Cor. 11: 1.)-A regard for what is becoming requires us not merely to consider the opinions of mankind, but our own real character and relations. To consider in this high sense what becomes us, is an exalted and inspiring view of life. Comp. Heb. 2: 10.

CHAPTER IV.

THEN was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilder- Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

devil. The Greek word diabolos (borrowed in Latin as diabolus, from which come Italian diavolo, French diable, English devil, German teufel, etc.), is the term regularly employed in the Sept. to translate the Hebrew name Satan. (Job 1: 6 ff.; 2: 1; 1 Chron. 21: 1; Zech. 3:1, 2.)2 The latter signifies ‘adversary,' ‘opposer,' while diabolos strictly signifies 'slanderer,' 'false accuser,' but in the N. T. is used as practically equivalent to Satan. So Mark 1: 13 has 'tempted by Satan,' and see below, v. 10. (Comp. 16: 23 and John 6: 70; also Rev. 12: 9.) The term 'devil' in the N. T. is strictly a proper name, as much so as Satan; his subordinates should be called 'demons,' as in the Greek (see on 8: 28). To the real existence and personality of the devil the Scriptures are fully committed. He is represented as the chief of the fallen angels (25: 41; comp. 9: 34), and through these he is able, though not omnipresent, to be carrying on the temptation of many persons at the same time. He is, of course, limited in knowledge, though immeasurably superior to man.

antania may have been the place of the third | some confusion arises, for example, in the temptation, if not of those preceding, which translation of James 1: 2-15, where there is quite possible. After all, it may be that a is a transition from the good to the badspecial providence caused the precise locality from 'trials' to 'temptations.' Of the of this and many other events in our Lord's history to be left unknown, for the purpose of restraining superstition. The Spirit, viz., the Spirit of God, well known and just mentioned. (3:16.) Luke says he was 'full of the Holy Spirit.' From the time of his baptism (see on 3: 16) we find frequent statements that the God-man, the Mediator, was specially and powerfully under the influence of the Holy Spirit (John 3: 34; Luke 4: 14; Matt. 12: 28; Acts 1: 2), as had been predicted. (Isa. 42: 1; Matt. 12: 18; Isa. 61: 1; Luke 4: 18.) The term led, employed also by Luke, appears to denote only an internal impulse wrought by the Spirit. Mark (1:12) expresses the same idea by a strong figure, literally, the Spirit casts him forth into the wilderness.' This is the language of the prophet-paroxysm, seized with an irresistible impulse; so the 'holy men of old' were impelled by the Spirit. (Ezek. 40: 2.)" (Beecher.) To be tempted. The Greek word signifies to try, or make trial of, to test. The motive of such testing or trial may be good or bad. (1) The object may be to ascertain character, to develop and make manifest its excellencies, or to expose its faults, that they may be mended. So in John 6: 6, 'prove'; 2 Cor. 13: 5, examine'; Rev. 2: 2, 'tried'; Gen. 22:1 (God did tempt' Abraham; Rev. Ver., 'prove'); Ex. 20: 20, 'prove,' etc. (2) The object may be unfriendly, bad. (a) Men 'tempt' God, test him, in some improper way, because they lack confidence in the fulfillment of his promises or threats. So below in v. 7 (Deut. 6: 16); Ex. 17: 2, 7 (Ps. 95:9); Isa. 7: 12; Acts 5: 9; 15: 10. (b) Men, or Satan and his subordinates, 'tempt' men, test them, with a view to draw out evil tendencies, and entice into sin. So here, and in 1 Cor. 7:5; 1 Thess. 3: 5, etc. (This sense does not occur in the O. T.) In all cases there is a testing, trying, and the difference lies in the nature and design of it. Our English word, 'tempt,' was formerly used in all these senses, but is now restricted to the bad sense; and

1 Alford remarks that the Greek word here employed, peirazo, does not have this sense in the classics. True; but the simpler and more common form, peirao, is repeatedly so used.

How could Jesus be tempted? Was it possible for him to sin? If this was in no sense possible, then he was not really tempted, certainly not like as we are.' (Heb. 4:15.) But how can it have been possible for him to sin? If we think of his human nature in itself, apart from the co-linked divinity, and apart from the Holy Spirit that filled and led him, then we must say that, like Adam in his state of purity, like the angels and every other moral creature, his humanity was certainly in itself capable of sinning, and thus the temptation was real, and was felt as such, and as such overcome; while yet in virtue of the union with the divine nature, and of the power of the Holy Spirit that filled him, it was morally impossible that he should sin.-A substantially similar view is well stated by Edersheim.-Jesus was tempted on other occasions also, as is implied in Luke 4: 13,

2 Plumptre erroneously states that the Greek word is different in Zech. 3: 1, 2. In using all commentaries, including the present one, readers will find it worth. while to "verify the references."

2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, 2 ness to be tempted of the devil. And when he had he was afterward an hungered.

and affirmed in Luke 22: 28, and Heb. 4: 15. It has been remarked (Ullmann) that there are in the nature of things two great classes of temptations, the one to commit positive evil, and the other to shrink from what is right. In the former way Jesus was tempted here, and when the people wanted him to be king (John 6:15); in the latter way he was tempted in Gethsemane, and when Peter tried to dissuade him. (16: 22, 23.)

fasted forty days and forty nights, he afterward

and have to be accepted. (2) Others wish to assimilate the Saviour's temptations to our own. (Heb. 4:15.) But this desire is amply met by considering his temptations during the forty days and throughout his career. (See above.) Every point connected with this series of temptations has occasioned a vast amount of speculation, often of the wildest character. Yet the subject from its very nature calls for guarded interpretation, great moderation in conjecture, and willingness to remain ignorant where we have no means of knowing; and it requires to be discussed in a spirit of profound reverence and hu

Why should Jesus be tempted? We can see some of the reasons. (1) It gave proof of his true humanity, proof that he possessed a real human soul. (2) It was part of his example to us. (3) It formed part of his per-mility. Familiar as we have grown with the sonal discipline (Heb. 5: 7-9); and (4) of his preparation to be a sympathizing intercessor. (Heb. 2:18; 4: 15.) (5) It formed a part of that great conflict in which the "seed of the woman was to "bruise the serpent's head." (Gen. 3:15.) In this first great struggle of the conflict the destined conqueror came off completely victorious.

During the forty days (Luke 4: 2), and at other times, our Lord was doubtless tempted by suggestion to his mind, as we are; but in the three signal and final temptations here described, it seems to be distinctly declared that Satan appeared in bodily form and with actually spoken words, and this fitted the scene for distinct and impressive description. To make it a mere vision, is without the slightest warrant. And while it is possible to regard the history as merely a vivid description of a series of internal temptations, it does no small violence to the language and the entire color of the narrative. Note especially the correspondence of the two expressions, 'the devil leaves him. . . . angels came and ministered to him,' where few who believe the Bible at all will question that the angels appeared in bodily form, as on so many other occasions. The desire of many commentators to reduce the scene to internal suggestion, apparently arises from two causes. (1) Some wish to lessen the difficulties of the narrative. But those who are repelled by the idea of Satan's personal appearance will be equally reluctant to admit his personality; so that there is nothing gained, and the difficulties of the subject are in fact inherent

simple narrative, it presents one of the most wonderful, mysterious, awful scenes of the world's history. O dark and dreadful enemy, ever plotting our ruin and exulting in our woe, here thou wast completely conquered on earth, conquered by a man, and in the strength of that Spirit whose help is offered to us all.

2. It is best to understand the fasting as entire abstinence from food. The word does not necessarily mean this, nor does even the strong expression of Luke, 'he did not eat anything in those days,' for Luke uses equally strong language of Paul's companions in Acts 27: 33, where he can only mean that they had taken very irregular and inadequate food, as it were nothing at all. (Comp. below 11: 18.) Still, the literal meaning is preferable here, because there is here nothing to forbid it, because also in the corresponding cases of Moses and Elijah the fasting is usually understood to have been entire, and because we thus best see the force of the statement, afterwards he was hungry,' or, as Luke,

and when they (the forty days) were completed he was hungry,' leading us to suppose that during the forty days he was not hungry, but supernaturally sustained. The time was the same as in the case of Moses (Ex. 34: 28), and Elijah (1 Kings 19:8), and was perhaps typically related also to the forty years spent by Israel in the wilderness (see on 2: 15). We do not know what originally caused the adoption of forty as a sacred or solemn number. (Gen. 7: 12; Deut. 9:25; 10: 10; Ezek. 4:6; Acts 7: 23, and often.) "Jesus had forty days before his public