With regard to the comparison of the Holy Ghost to a dove, it is evident from the expression wasí, "as," which is used by all the four Evangelists, that they wished to have it understood as such, i.e. as a comparison or simile. The reality of the phenomenon, it is true, is expressly rendered prominent (owμarınî ïde, “in a bodily form," Luke iii. 22,); but as a real spiritual appearance or phenomenon, it was invisible to the physical eye, and hence it is that the impression produced can be described only by a comparison with things visible. According to biblical symbolization, certain spiritual characters appear personified in individual animals, such as the lamb, the lion, the eagle, and the bull. In this natural system of hieroglyphics, the dove is the symbol of purity and cleanness, and hence it is with the dove that the Spirit of purity can be most properly compared.1 The coming of the Spirit like a dove, hence indicates that the fulness of the Spirit of purity and cleanness, through which Jesus became the purifier of mankind, had fallen to his share. Thereby he was, as it were, sealed, i.e. confirmed, as the Son of God, and hence the substance of the words heard from heaven is: orós šotiv ò viós mou x. r. λ, "this is my son," &c. That the expression

since the gift of prophecy disappeared from among the people of Israel. Yet, this can be regarded the less as an historical statement, inasmuch as the whole affair contains something which easily leads to misconceptions and abuses, so that it cannot be believed that Providence destined it as a compensation for the silence of the prophets. The heavenly voices of which mention is made in the New Testament, lose the striking features which they invariably possess, the moment we reflect that the idea of divine speaking (= to revealing himself) is to be found throughout the whole of the Scriptures, and that the same phenomenon is apparent in all divine manifestations. In these divine manifestations the voice is forgotten in the apparition; but where the voice only is heard, no notice is taken of the presence of the spiritual being, nor a mere invisible revelation. But in spiritual proximity the senses penetrate one another, and thus form an union for perception.-The name, daughter of the voice," has been explained, moreover, very correctly by Buxtorf, Lex. Tal. p. 310, where it is called: filia, i.e. vox secundaria, cœlestis vocis partus, "the daughter, that is, a secondary voice, born of the celestial voice." In the terrestrial word they saw the echo of the heavenly word, and hence they applied the former as a prophecy of impending

events.

66

1 The comparison of the Spirit with the dove, is likewise to be found in the Samaritan and Rabbinical writers. In the tract Chaghigah, referring to Gen. i. 3, it is said: Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aqua, ut columba, "the Spirit of God hovered over the waters like a dove." The Christian sects borrowed the simile, no doubt, from the New Testament.

vids Oso, "Son of God," here refers to the divine and eternal υἱὸς Θεοῦ, nature of the Son, is evident from John i. 34. In it our Redeemer became, by the baptism of the Spirit, perfected, assured, and revealed in an especial manner to St John. ('Ayanrós="beloved."—Ebdozen v TIVI = E "to be wellpleased in or with any one." God is pleased only with the image of himself, hence with man in Christ only. Ephes. i. 6). Two circumstances are brought forward as peculiarly remarkable in the narrative of the occurrences at the baptism, given by the Evangelist St John, i. 32. In the first place, the veμa ve ' πνεῦμα ἔμεινε αὐτόν, “ the Spirit abode upon him,” (i.e. ἦλθεν ἐπ' αὐτὸν καὶ ἔμεινε, came upon him and abode.") In these words the Evangelist puts forward in the Redeemer, what he evidently regards throughout as a peculiarity of the manifestation of the Spirit under the New Testament. Whilst the Spirit manifests itself for single moments, in its Old Testament form of ministration, he appears in the New Testament, with uniform activity, as belonging thereto. In the life of Jesus, we find this uniformity in the knowledge of his divine character represented to perfection, whereas, in the development of life of the righteous men of the Old Testament, there is always manifested an interchange of moments of an elevated character with others which are, as it were, void of the Spirit. The oux ou aurov, "knew him not," of St John i. 33, is also a remarkable passage. These words seem to contradict partly the passage of St Matth. iii. 14, which implies an acquaintance between Jesus and St John, and partly the nature of the circumstances which, as the mothers of both were so friendly, would lead to the knowledge of one another. But the term ow, "to know," it is evident, is here by no means opposed to the supposition that St John knew Jesus externally, and that he cherished some forebodings concerning his exalted destination. But in order to obtain the divine undoubted certainty that it was in the person of Jesus that the hopes of mankind were to be realized, hence he required an express confirmation, which should be of such a nature as to place them beyond all the liabilities to doubt and deception to which they might be subject. As such a wonderful sign he regarded the outpouring of the Spirit upon him, which was made to him on occasion of the baptism. (John i. 33).

St Luke (iii. 23,) connects with his account of the baptism the genealogy of our Redeemer, inasmuch as he begins it accor

ding to the prevailing national view (vs voulero, "being as was reputed,") with Joseph the spouse of Mary. But with this transition St Luke combines the important notice, that Jesus was 30 years old when he began his ministry. The additional term was, "about," it is true, appears to render uncertain the determinate number of years; yet, as, according to Numb. iv. 3, 47, the age of 30 years was fixed for each Levite as the period of his entering upon his office, and as the Redeemer conformed himself everywhere to the existing regulations of the old covenant, hence we may conclude, with much plausibility, that the Redeemer was not under 30 years of age. Yet, there is no reason to suppose that he had passed the fixed number. In the life of our Lord everything has its number and measure, and it will be best to abide by the age mentioned. The only thing vague is, whether his public appearance took place in the beginning or at the end of the year. (With regard to the construction of the proposition, it is best to complete it by the verb didάoxe, "to teach," after ȧgxóuevos, "beginning." The combination of the participle with , "was," or of , "being," with ȧgxóμevos, are not in agreement with the whole connection.)

§ 3. THE TEMPTATION OF CHRIST.

(Matth. iv. 1-11; Mark i. 12, 13; Luke iv. 1-13.)

In most perfect accordance with the preparation of our Redeemer by his endowment with the fulness of the Spirit, does his victory in his struggle with the evil spirit present itself. The idea of the Messiah implies his being called into existence for the destruction of the kingdom of darkness; hence his whole life on earth appears to be a struggle with the prince of darkness; yet, the Gospel-history points out two events only in the life of Jesus, wherein he resisted the full combined power of the evil spirit and overcame it. These momentous events form the beginning and the end of his public ministry, and both of them display their peculiar character. In the first temptation, at the very entrance upon his office,' enticement presented itself to our Lord

1 Even in the Jewish theology, and from the general conception of the Messiah, an opinion had been formed that he was to be tempted by Satan,

in the form of sensual pleasure; and in the second, at the end of his earthly career, it was through the fear of sufferings and death. Each one of these temptations presents itself in a varied form; in the uniform victory over both we behold our Lord as the ideal of consummate righteousness, as victor in the struggle against sin. The narrative before us, describing the temptation of Jesus on the part of sensual pleasure, represents this pleasure as approaching our Lord in the three principal forms or aspects through which the world ever seeks to act, viz. the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life (1 John ii. 16). Hence this narrative expresses the perfect and satisfactory character of his victory over sin, forming thus a worthy introduction to the public manifestation of the ministry of the Redeemer, who was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin (Heb. iv. 15). The same temptations of pleasure that here encountered Jesus in a state of concentration, and in which state they were repelled, accompanied him in special forms throughout the whole period of his earthly ministry, presenting themselves to him at one time in one shape and at another in another. In like manner was our Redeemer encountered throughout his whole life by temptations on the side of pain and suffering, until they presented themselves at the end of his earthly career in the fullest state of concentration.

The mode of viewing the Gospel narrative of the temptation of Christ depends upon the position of the expounder relative to the doctrine of the devil and of evil angels in general. Reserving the further explanation on this point for the passage of Mat. viii. 28, we shall merely observe, that exposition can divest itself of the doctrine of the existence of evil spiritual beings, only through the highest degree of arbitrariness, inasmuch as we are taught even by the Old Testament, although, for wise reasons, in a mystical manner, that man did not produce evil from within himself (in which case the idea of a redemption, which presupposes a subjection to a foreign, i.e. external power, would be utterly destroyed), but because he was misled by an evil power, whereby he becomes exposed to its influence (comp. Genes. iii. I; Levit. xx. 6; Deut. xxxii. 17; Ps. cvi. 37; Job i. 6; Isaiah liv. 16; Zechariah iii. 1). In the New Testament this doctrine is

even at the very entrance upon his office. (Comp Schöttgen's work, Jesus der wahre Messias; aus der Jüdischen Theologie dargestellt. Leipzig, 1748. 8vo. p. 754 sqq.

confirmed by Christ partly by the general presupposition, which is manifest in innumerable discourses of his, that the kingdom of the good is opposed by a kingdom of the evil (comp. Matth. xii. 26 sqq.), and partly by express declarations concerning this doctrine (Matth. xiii. 39; John viii. 44; xiv. 30), which admit to an unbiassed commentator no other mode of explanation whatever. Hence, if the expounder finds himself necessitated to include the doctrine of the existence of the devil within the circle of the doctrines of Jesus and the apostles, he then will be able the less to bestow his approbation on expositions of the history of the temptation, which apply the expression diáßoλo5, "devil" (in St Matthew and St Luke, for which St Mark has the term caravas, "satan"), to every human adversary and tempter, since the idea of Christ necessarily contains the idea of his struggle against evil in its state of concentration. The whole biblical doctrine of the relation of Christ to the kingdom of evil, though we were not possessed of the history of the temptation, would lead us to the very same idea exemplified therein. But if we are unable to adopt for ourselves this latter exposition, so this must be the case in a far higher degree with all those who regard the temptations so clearly defined in the history of the temptation of Christ as having emanated from within the Redeemer himself. Schleiermacher is not wrong when he writes: "Had Jesus cherished such thoughts (as the tempter expressed to him,) in the faintest degree, he would have been Christ no longer; hence, this manner of exposition appears to me the most wicked Neoteric outrage that can be committed against his person." (Versuch über den Lucas, p. 54). The absolute purity of Jesus permitted in no ways the derivation from himself of an impure idea; as the first Adam, according to the deeply significant narrative of the book of Genesis, was tempted from without, so was in like manner the second Adam (1 Cor. xv. 47), only with this difference, that the latter was victorious. But Schleiermacher's own opinion that the temptation is a mere parabolical narrative, which has been misunderstood at a subsequent period, a view, too,

The hypothesis raised by Meyer, (in Part 2, of Ullmann's and Umbreit's Stud. und Krit. for the year 1831,) that the history of the temptation is a dream, to which he compares the dream of Solomon, (1 Kings iii. 5 sqq.) does not essentially differ from this view. For, if these ideas of the tempter could have arisen in the heart of Christ, even in a dream, his purity then would have been polluted. But if the