derive from the other Evangelists? Are we not told that he came to
level the hills, and exalt the valleys? Are we not told that he bade
his countrymen not say within themselves that they had Abraham to
their father, because God was able of the stones to raise up children
to Abraham? What finer commentary can we find on these announcements
than the words, '_He testified of the true Light, which lighteth every
man that cometh into the world_'?
Still the reader of St. John's Gospel will continue to ask himself,
'Is not the lesson which I am taught here, in some sense or other, a
more advanced lesson than that which was imparted even by the first
Evangelists,--_à fortiori_, than that which was imparted before the
day of Pentecost, before the resurrection, the death, even the
preaching, of Jesus Christ?' I think, my brethren, that there is a
confusion latent in this word '_advanced_'--a confusion which besets
other studies as well as theological. We speak of Bacon's discovery of
the true method of physical investigation, as the greatest step in
advance which it was possible for the man of science to take. But in
another sense that discovery involved a retrogression. The schoolman,
who had proceeded with the greatest satisfaction to himself in
building a tower of speculations respecting nature, is stopped in his
work and bidden to look back to his foundations. Classifications and
generalizations, which had appeared convenient and indispensable, are
disallowed, because they hinder direct intercourse with the facts.
And the laborious collector of facts, though he is commended for his
diligence, is told that every one of them must be submitted to tests
before we can know what it is worth. Is it not true, in this and in
all similar instances, that the greatest progress consists in the
assertion and elucidation of first principles; that when they are
asserted and elucidated, all faithful effort is seen to have been
directed to the search for them,--all unfaithful, self-seeking
efforts, to the construction of systems on hypothetical sand?
Applying this remark to the case before us, I conceive we may freely
say, as some of the early Fathers said, that St. John's Gospel is the
most spiritual and divine of all the Gospels. And we may maintain its
claim to that honour, by showing that it leads us to a grand primary
truth, affecting all human beings, capable of being apprehended by
those who have least of what is called culture, capable of making
itself manifest to the consciences of the most guilty. Does not his
Gospel, _for this reason_, establish the truth of the other Gospels
and Epistles, which had been unfolding the ways of God to men? May it
not, for the same reason, have brought a number of false gospels to
the test, and have scattered a number of windy theories and popular
systems, which, under philosophical or theological pretences, were
separating God from His creatures? Nor can I find anything
inconsistent with reason and probability--or with the doctrine of
Scripture that the Spirit of God brings back to the remembrance of
those whom He is teaching the lessons they received, the states of
mind they passed through in days long past--in the supposition that
the Apostle owed his clear perception of this universal truth, in a
great measure, to the vividness with which the experiences of his
youth were revived in him; the sixty or seventy wonderful years which
had passed over his head since he stood by the Jordan, and saw the
shaggy form and awful eye of him who first spoke to him of a kingdom
of heaven, helping him to take in the meaning of the words which
seized and possessed him then, though he was not able to seize and
possess them.
I have been anxious to make these observations, because it seems to me
that the passage of St. John's Gospel of which I am to speak to-day
will be utterly obscure to us--nay, that the whole Gospel will be
obscure--if we forget them. St. John can in nowise separate the idea
of the Baptist from that of a witness concerning the Light, a
messenger to declare the divine Word that in Him all men might
believe. This he considers the fundamental, radical meaning of his
mission, apart from which his baptism of repentance had no sense or
purpose whatever. But to identify _a man_ as connected with this
teaching--as the subject of it--this was the difficulty. To do this
the Baptist needed a special, formal revelation, accompanied by an
outward sign. The baptism of Jesus, and the visible token that the
Spirit was given Him, are said to have been the assurance which was
required. While he was without it, he was a preacher of the Word who
was with God and was God. He was a preacher of a light of men. He was
announcing, as the prophets of old had announced, that a day of the
Lord was at hand; that there would be a manifestation of the light.
Thenceforth he began to mingle his previous message with announcements
concerning _the Word made flesh_. These announcements are not repeated
as if they were parts of a continuous discourse, like his words to the
crowds that had flocked to him from every part of Palestine. They
come forth as if they were the effect of sudden intuitions--lightning
flashes which must often have been followed by periods of dimness and
darkness. John knew that a crisis was at hand which would try the
hearts of all men. He knew that he was sent by God to speak to their
hearts of Him, as being the same now that He had been in the days of
their fathers. He knew that whatever good was awaiting his countrymen
must come from a fuller revelation of God. This was the preparation,
the only possible preparation in his own mind, for the recognition of
Jesus as the Christ,--the only way in which he could prepare his
countrymen for _such_ a Christ.
We are all aware--we dwell upon the assertion--that the Jews were at
this time expecting a Christ, but that their expectations were of a
wrong kind; that they pointed to a deliverer different in most
respects from the One who had been promised them. We cannot, perhaps,
exaggerate this error, but we may make considerable mistakes when we
try to state in what it consisted. We sometimes say that the Jews were
looking for a great _Prince_. Undoubtedly they were. If they read the
Prophets, they must have looked for a king. The other Evangelists say
that Jesus proved Himself to be a King, and so fulfilled the words of
the Prophets. We shall find that St John says the same. 'Yes,' we go
on, 'a King in a certain sense, but not a _temporal_ king' What! is
not our Lord said to have been born in the days of Herod--to have been
baptized when He was about thirty years old--to have been tempted
forty days--to have kept annual feasts--to have risen the third
day--to have tarried forty days among His disciples after the
resurrection? All the acts which are recorded of Him in the Gospels
were acts done in time. 'Yes,' we resume, 'if you define temporal in
this exact manner. But the Jews thought He was to be an "_earthly_"
king.' And were not all the powers by which He showed Himself to be a
king, exercised upon earth for the sons of earth, for the removal of
the plagues and diseases to which earth is liable? We make another
experiment. We say, they supposed that He was to be a _Jewish_ king.
Could they suppose otherwise? Was not David to have an heir to his
throne? Do not the Evangelists take pains to speak of their Master as
the Son of David?
The Jews of that time cannot be fairly condemned on these grounds; and
yet our conviction that they were under some grievous mistake, gains
strength from all we read of them--nay, from our very failures to
define the quality of it. May not St. John himself explain the error
which had caused him such unspeakable sorrow, better than we can? Have
we not the explanation here?
The Jews looked for one who was _coming_ to be a leader and deliverer.
He might come with the manifest tokens of royalty. He might come as
one of the old prophets had come. It was not impossible that he might
be born in some humble station, for David had been a shepherd. It was
probable that he would be born in a lowly _village_, for Bethlehem was
associated with the name of David. He _might_ be this John, for his
coarse food and raiment certainly did not show him not to be an
Elijah, or an Isaiah, or a Daniel. And John had given this proof of
power, that he was drawing multitudes to hear discourses that had no
apparent charm--that were stern and terrible. It was not at all
impossible, nay, it might be presumed, that when the Christ came, He
would introduce some new ordinance, or give a new force to one
already in use. The river of Jordan had a sacred historical
importance; to wash men in that might denote that he was preparing
Israelites for conquests like those of Joshua. No doubt, other signs
might be added to this in due time; there would probably be strange
appearances in the heavens,--some of the tokens which had accompanied
the rare visits of angels that are recorded in the Old Testament. For
who could tell whether the Christ might not _be_ an angel, the
visitant from another region? Who could tell whether He might not be
an old seer returning to the earth again? There were all these
possibilities. One was stronger in this mind, and one in that. Which
was the truest, the scribes hoped in due time to discover, by studying
the letter of the divine oracles, and ascertaining what particulars of
time and place were indicated in them as necessary conditions of the
deliverer.
What was there faulty in such speculations? What was there to complain
of in the test which was applied to ascertain their worth? St. John
suggests _this_ answer to us. They were expecting one that should come
after all prophets, not one that had been before all. They were
looking for a son of David, a prophet, an angel; they were not looking
for One who had been with God, and was God. They were looking for one
whom they should recognise with their eyes; they were not looking for
One whose light had been always shining in their hearts. They were
looking for a king who should reign over men; they did not think that
that King must be One who had from the beginning been the Light of
men. They thought of one who should be born into the world; they did
not think that He who was to be born into the world was One who was
in the world, and by whom the world was made, though the world knew
Him not.
It was precisely to bring this information, in the only way in which
it could be brought to any human being, that we are told the man John
was sent from God. And because the whole mind of the Prophet was
possessed with this conviction, he was able to receive the
communication which told him that a Man, without any signs of royalty,
without any signs of prophetical dignity, One who had apparently been
born and brought up in Galilee, One who had given no proof that He
possessed any power of commanding the services of multitudes or of
individuals,--was that Christ in whom all the characteristics of King
and Prophet were to meet. This Man, he says, this carpenter's son, was
He of whom I spake, '_He that cometh after me is preferred before me;
for He was before me_.' Possibly a better translation of the last
clause might be found, but the one we have is good enough; it conveys
the sense of the original, though it be a little diluted. The next
verse, as I said last Sunday, is naturally connected with this. Both,
I believe, must be taken as part of John's witness. Here is that
divine Word of God, out of whom all grace has issued. Each right and
true man has had some grace, denoting him to be of divine origin. In
Him dwelt that fulness of grace and glory, of which these were the
scattered rays. Then the Evangelist comments upon this witness, and
connects it with what he had said in the fifteenth verse. '_For the
law was given through Moses, but the grace and the truth became
through Jesus Christ._' Outward law, literal commands, tables of
stone, had been given through a mere man, a mere servant or messenger.
But all the grace and the truth, which were the essence of the law,
which could not be expressed in letters, but only in the lives and
acts of human beings,--these became parts of any man's character
through Jesus Christ. For these belonged to the nature of God
Himself,--these constituted His being. In Himself they could not be
seen: '_No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which
is in the bosom of the Father_.' He it is who in all ages has brought
forth the divine perfection, in distinct qualities, and has exhibited
them to men, and in men.
So far we have the testimony of John, originally addressed, it would
appear, to his own disciples--now illustrated and expounded by the
matured wisdom of one of them. Next we have the record of John, '_when
the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask Him, Who art
thou_?' They had a right to know. A new pretender had started up.
Slight as his credentials seemed to be, the people were crowding about
him. He was baptizing, not Gentiles, but Jews; he was treating the
most religious and exalted as if they were impure, as if they needed
the same cleansing as those needed who had not been born in the
covenant. What did it all mean? The messengers must get some clear
distinct satisfaction on this point before they returned to their
masters. '_And he confessed, and denied not, but confessed, I am not
the Christ._' The questioners must have been surprised. If he did not
actually claim a title which so many had claimed, they might have
expected a little hesitation. He might have left the point open; he
might have allowed his scholars to assert the dignity for him. There
was another possibility. Malachi had said that an Elijah would come.
John certainly had few marks of grandeur about him; but he dwelt in a
desert; he did not fear the face of kings; he could have denounced
Ahab and Jezebel, as he afterwards denounced Herod and Herodias. He
evidently understood the question literally, for the messengers
intended it literally. They supposed that Elijah had been carried away
into some invisible region, and that from thence he himself would
descend. Seeing, therefore, that John was not one who trafficked with
words in a double sense, or who would convey a falsehood in the terms
of truth, he answered to this demand also, '_I am not_.' But Isaiah,
Jeremiah, all the Jewish seers, had not only spoken of a great
Conqueror,--they had spoken also of a Sufferer. A few might try to
identify the characters. The prevailing opinion among the Jews was of
course then, as it is now, that they were separated,--one description
denoted a King, the other a Prophet. If he was not a King, was he that
Prophet? And again he answered, '_No_.'
The messengers have exhausted their guesses; they begin to be
provoked. It will not do to go back merely with a set of negatives.
'_Then said they, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them
that sent us: What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of
one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as
said the prophet Esaias._' You see how carefully he associates his
message with that of the old prophets; how confident he is that he is
preparing a way just as they were; how sure he is that it is the way
of the Lord--that wonderful road between the unseen Being and the
heart of His creatures, of which they had one and all spoken. So far
he was using language which belongs to every psalmist and every
prophet. In adopting the words in the 40th chapter of Isaiah, as the
description of his calling and his work, he proved more distinctly
that he was '_sent to bear_ _witness of the Light, that all men
through Him might believe_.' For the burden of that chapter is, that
Jerusalem should lift up her voice, and say to the cities of Judah,
'_Behold your God_;' and it is the beginning of a series of
prophetical inspirations, in which the Jew is represented as holding
up the true image of God to all nations, that the images which they
had made of Him might be confounded. John was preparing the way, then,
for a declaration or manifestation of God; he was clearing away the
thorns and briers which blocked up the path between the Word of God
and the conscience of man.
St. John significantly intimates how little language of this kind
could be intelligible to the Jewish emissaries, for he adds, '_They
that were sent were of the Pharisees_.' Very characteristically they
relieved themselves of the embarrassment which the Scripture always
caused them, when it could not be measured by lines and rules, when it
appealed to the hearts of living men, by asking, '_Why baptizest thou,
then, if thou art not the Christ, neither Elias, neither that
Prophet_?' They had an excuse for urging that demand. It was an
audacious thing for a man to practise such a rite, to press it upon
all, to speak of it as a baptism for repentance and the sending away
of sins, if he had not some divine authority for what he was doing.
Yet he had produced none. And now he refused all the titles which
would seem to have been the warrants for such an innovation. Nor does
he tell the Pharisees when or how he received his commission. His
answer is, '_I baptize with water: but in the midst of you there
standeth One whom ye know not; He it is who, coming after me, was
preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy that I
should unloose_.' More is not said here. The messengers are not told
what this Person who is in the midst of them would do, which John
could not do; that announcement is reserved for another occasion. The
thought which he still dwells upon is, that there is a mysterious
Being in the midst of them, their Lord and his; One who has power to
command, One whom he is bound to obey. By speaking of the latchet of
the sandal, he clearly intimates that this Person is among them in a
visible form. But neither in that form, nor in His own proper nature,
do they know Him. They would know Him as little if they were told His
name, if He stood out before them, even if He exhibited His power to
them, as they did then. I am warranted in believing that _this_ is the
sense of the words; for we shall find how continually our Lord resorts
to the same phrase in His conversations with the Jews, and assures
them that though they saw Him, they _knew_ Him not.
We have now reached the words of the text. They are carefully
separated by the Evangelist from the discourse with the Pharisees.
'_These things_,' he says, '_were done, in Bethabara, beyond Jordan,
where John was baptizing_. _The next day John seeth Jesus coming to
him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of
the world._' But though the sentence formed no part of that discourse,
it is immediately joined to the words which have recurred so often:
'_This is He of whom I said, After me cometh a Man which is preferred
before me; for He was before me._'
It is evident, then, I think, that we shall never enter into the force
of this wonderful sentence, which has exercised more power over
eighteen centuries, than perhaps any which was ever spoken or written,
if we take it apart from the context of John the Baptist's life and of
his preaching. All have felt that the preacher must have meant those
to behold the Taker-away of sin, who had come confessing their sins,
and to whom he had spoken of the remission of sins; that upon others
the words must have fallen as dull, dead words, in which they had no
interest. Is it not equally true that the words, '_sin of the world_,'
must have been connected by them with what they had heard of One who
was in the world, and whom the world knew not? and with what they had
heard of a light which lighteneth every man who came into the world,
and of a darkness that had not comprehended it? I do not mean that
this discovery to each man of his own darkness, this perception of a
light near him which he had resisted, this conviction in each man that
his sin _was_ the sin of the world, were of themselves sufficient to
unfold the infinite mystery which lay in the Baptist's words. I say of
them, what I said of the verse, '_The Word was made flesh, and dwelt
among us, (and we beheld his glory, as of the only-begotten of the
Father) full of grace and truth_;' all this Gospel is written to
expound them. We must decipher them by degrees, as the Apostle and
Evangelist himself deciphered them; he will lead us along with him, if
we are content to follow. And do not let us be chary and timid in the
demands we make upon him. Let us endure no half explanations that rob
us of any portion of the meaning which must be hid in such an
utterance. Let us have no imperfect substitute for any syllable of it.
For the sake of our own inmost being, for the sake of our brethren, we
want the whole meaning in its fullest strength. If we are told that
there is One who takes away _sin_, we must not be content that He
should be shown to take away some accident or consequence of sin. If
He is said to take away the sin of the _world_, we must not be told
that the world is a metaphor for a few individuals. We must ask why
He who takes away sin is called a _Lamb_,--why he is called the Lamb
of _God_? If a lamb is associated in our minds with innocence and
purity, we must learn how that idea is fulfilled in _this_ Lamb. If it
was connected in the mind of every Jew with the sacrifice of the
Paschal feast, we must ask how this Lamb includes whatever is
expressed in that sacrifice and that feast? I do not anticipate St.
John's answers to these demands; but as he has himself excited them, I
am sure he will prove himself to be an honest and a God-inspired man,
by telling us how they were satisfied for him, how they may be for us.
One thing more he must tell us also, and may God open our hearts to
receive his instruction! John the Baptist says, that he had come
baptizing with water, in order that He might be manifested to Israel
who would baptize with the Spirit. Here is evidently the turning-point
of the two dispensations; here the teaching of John melts away into
the teaching of Jesus; here the witness of the servant is changed for
the witness of the Son. Seeing, then, that St. John takes so much
pains to mark this transition; seeing that the office of Christ, as
the Baptizer with the Spirit, is evidently that which he will
especially dwell upon in the after portions of his Gospel,--let us not
doubt, but earnestly believe, that what we have heard respecting the
Word will be a preparation for this more especially Christian lore,
provided we have not only heard with our outward ear, but have
suffered the light which is shining now, as it shone of old, to
penetrate our consciences and hearts, and to turn them from their own
darkness to the God who dwelleth in perfect light, in whom is no
darkness at all.
DISCOURSE IV.
THE LAMB OF GOD AND THE SON OF GOD.
[Lincoln's Inn, 3d Sunday in Lent, February 24, 1856.]
ST. JOHN I. 46.
_And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of
Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see._
I made no attempt to explain the verse which I took for my text last
Sunday. I merely endeavoured to show you how it was connected with
those which preceded it. I was sure that it would receive abundance of
light from those which come after it. A series of ages, I said, had
confessed the force of the words. We must take care that we do not
allow the strength of any one of them to evaporate in our hands.
Some have been surprised that John should speak of a _Lamb_ who
beareth or taketh away the sin of the world. Was there not another
image which would present itself more naturally to a subject and a
student of the law of Moses? Might not the scapegoat, upon whose head
the priest's hands were laid, over whose head the sins of the people
were confessed, be said more strictly to bear away sins than the
Paschal Lamb? Did not the scenery by which John was surrounded far
more naturally recal the animal who went away into a land not
inhabited? Why should the man whose food was locusts and wild honey go
to a feast for his emblem? Why should the preacher in the wilderness
think of the _Paschal_ feast, which belonged to the city and the
family?