witness, but they told of what He did, and how all men came to Him.
The answer which the Baptist made, may be said to mark the high point of his life and witness. Never before was he so tender, almost sad; never before more humble and self-denying, more earnest and faithful. The setting of his own life-sun was to be the rising of One infinitely more bright; the end of his Mission the begining of another far higher. In the silence, which was now gathering around him, he heard but one Voice, that of the Bridegroom, and he rejoiced in it, though he must listen to it in stillness and loneliness. For it he had waited and worked. Not his own, but this had he sought. And now that it had come, he was content; more than content: his 'joy was now fulfilled.' 'He must increase, but I must decrease.' It was the right and good order. With these as his last words publicly spoken, [1 The next event was John's imprisonment by Herod.] this Aaron of the New Testament unrobed himself ere he lay down to die. Surely among those born of women there was not one greater than John.
That these were his last words, publicly spoken and recorded, may, however, explain to us why on this exceptional occasion Jesus sanctioned the administration by His disciples of the Baptism of John. It was not a retrogression from the position He had taken in Jerusalem, nor caused by the refusal of His Messianic claims in the Temple. [2 This strange suggestion is made by Godet] There is no retrogression, only progression, in the Life of Jesus. And yet it was only on this occasion that the rite was administered under His sanction. But the circumstances were exceptional. It was John's last testimony to Jesus, and it was preceded by this testimony of Jesus to John. Far divergent, almost opposite, as from the first their paths had been, this practical sanction on the part of Jesus of John's Baptism, when the Baptist was about to be forsaken, betrayed, and murdered, was Christ's highest testimony to him. Jesus adopted his Baptism, ere its waters for ever ceased to flow, and thus He blessed and consecrated them. He took up the work of His Forerunner, and continued it. The baptismal rite of John administered with the sanction of Jesus, was the highest witness that could be borne to it.
There is no necessity for supposing that John and the disciples of Jesus baptized at, or quite close to, the same place. On the contrary, such immediate juxtaposition seems, for obvious reasons, unlikely. Jesus was within the boundaries of the province of Judaea, while John baptized at Aenon (the springs), near to Salim. The latter site has not been identified. But the oldest tradition, which places it a few miles to the south of Bethshean (Scythopolis), on the border of Samaria and Galilee, has this in its favour, that it locates the scene of John's last public work close to the seat of Hearod Antipas, into whose power the Baptist was so soon to be delivered. [1 No fewer than four localities have been identified with Aenon and Salim. Ewald, Hengstenberg, Wieseler, and Godet, seek it on the southern border of Judaea (En-rimmon, Neh. xi. 29, comp. Josh. xv. 1, 32). This seems so improbable as scarcely to require discussion. Dr. Barclay (City of the Great King, pp. 558-571) finds it a few miles from Jerusalem in the Wady Far'ah, but admits (p. 565) that there are doubts about the Arab pronunciation of this Salim. Lieut. Conder (Tent-Work in Palest., vol. i. pp. 91-93) finds it in the Wady Far'ah, which leads from Samaria to the Jordan. Here he describes most pictorially 'the springs' 'in the open valley surrounded by desolate and shapeless hills,' with the village of Salim three miles south of the valley, and the village of'Ainan four miles north of the stream. Against this there are, however, two objections. First, both Aenon and Salim would have been in Samaria. Secondly, so far from being close to each other, Aenon would have been seven miles from Salim.] But already there were causes at work to remove both Jesus and His Forerunner from their present spheres of activity. As regards Christ, we have the express statement, [a St. John iv. 1.] that the machinations of the Pharisaic
party in Jerusalem led Him to withdraw into Galilee. And, as we gather from the notice of St. John, the Baptist was now involved in this hostility, as being so closely connected with Jesus. Indeed, we venture the suggestion that the imprisonment of the Baptist, although occasioned by his outspoken rebuke of Herod, was in great part due to the intrigues of the Pharisees. Of such a connection between them and Herod Antipas, we have direct evidence in a similar attempt to bring about the removal of Jesus from his territory, [b St. Luke xiii. 31, 32.] It would not have been difficult to rouse the suspicions of a nature so mean and jealous as that of Antipas, and this may explain the account of Josephus, [c Ant. xviii 5. 2.] who attributes the imprisonment and death of the Baptist simply to Herod's suspicious fear of John's unbounded influence with the people. [1 Ant. xviii. 5. 2: 'But to some of the Jews it appeared, that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and, indeed, as a righteous punishment on account of what had been done to John, who was surnamed the Baptist. For Herod ordered him to be killed, a good man, and who commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism. For that the baptizing would be acceptable to Him, if they made use of it, not for the putting away (remission) of some sins, but for the purification of the body, after that the soul had been previously cleansed by righteousness. And when others had come in crowds, for they were exceedingly moved by hearing these words, Herod, fearing lest such influence of his over the people might lead to some rebellion, for they seemed ready to do anything by his counsel, deemed it best, before anything new should happen through him, to put him to death, rather than that, when a change should arise in affairs, he might have to repent.', Comp. also Krebs. Observationes in Nov. Test, e Fl. Jos. pp. 35, 36.]
Leaving for the present the Baptist, we follow the footsteps of the Master. They are only traced by the disciple who best understood their direction, and who alone has left us a record of the beginning of Christ's ministry. For St. Matthew and St. Mark expressly indicate the imprisonment of the Baptist as their starting-point, [a St. Mark j. 14; St. Mark iv. 12.] and, though St. Luke does not say this in so many words, he characteristically commences with Christ's public Evangelic teaching in the Synagogues of Galilee. Yet the narrative of St. Matthew [b See specially St. Matt. iv. 13 to end.] reads rather like a brief summary; [2 I am so strongly impressed with this, that I do not feel sure about Godet's theory, that the calling of the four Apostles recorded by the Synoptists (St. Matt. iv. 18-22; St. Mark i. 16-20; St. Luke v. 1-11), had really taken place during our Lord's first stay in Capernaum (St. John ii. 12). On the whole, however, the circumstances recorded by the Synoptists seem to indicate a period in the Lord's Ministry beyond that early stay in Capernaum.] that of St. Mark seems like a succession of rapid sketches; and even that of St. Luke, though with deeper historic purpose than the others, outlines, rather than tells, the history. St. John alone does not profess to give a narrative at all in the ordinary sense; but he selects incidents which are characteristic as unfolding the meaning of that Life, and records discourses which open its inmost teaching; [c St. Johnxx. 30, 31; xxi. 25.] and he alone tells of that early Judaean ministry and the journey through Samaria, which preceded the Galilean work.
The shorter road from Judaea to Galilee led through Samaria; [d Jos. Life, 52.]and this, if we may credit Josephus, [e Ant. xx. 6. 1.] was generally taken by the Galileans on their way to the capital. On the other hand, the Judaeans seem chiefly to have made a detour through Peraea, in order to avoid hostile and impure Samaria. It lay not within the scope of our Lord to extend His personal Ministry, especially at its commencement, beyond the boundaries of Israel, [f St. Matt. x. 5.] and the expression, 'He must needs go through Samaria,' [g St. John iv. 4.] can only refer to the
advisability in the circumstances of taking the most direct road, [11 cannot agree with Archdeacon Watkins, that the 'needs go' was in order 'to teach in Samaria, as in Judea, the principles of true religion and worship.'] or else to the wish of avoiding Peraea as the seat of Herod's government. [2 So Bengel and Luthardt] Such prejudices in regard to Samaria, as those which affected the ordinary Judaean devotee, would, of course, not influence the conduct of Jesus. But great as these undoubtedly were, they have been unduly exaggerated by modern writers, misled by one-sided quotations from Rabbinic works. [3 Much as has been written about Samaria, the subject has not been quite satisfactorily treated. Some of the passages referred to by Deutsch (Smith's Diet, of the Bible, vol. iii., Art. Samaritan Pentat. p. 1118) cannot be verified, probably owing to printer's mistakes.]
The Biblical history of that part of Palestine which bore the name of Samaria need not here be repeated, [a Comp. 1 Kings xiii. 32; xvi. 24 &c; Tiglath-Pileser, 2 Kings xv. 29; Shalmaneser, xvii. 3-5; xviii. 9-11; Sargon. xvii. 6, &c] Before the final deportation of Israel by Shalmaneser, or rather Sargon, [4 Comp. Smith's Bible Diet., Art. Sargon; and Schrader, Keil-Inschr. u. d. Alte Test. p. 158 &c] the 'Samaria' to which his operations extended must have considerably shrunk in dimensions, not only owing to previous conquests, but from the circumstance that the authority of the kings of Judah seems to have extended over a considerable portion of what once constituted the kingdom of Israel, [b 2 Chron.xxx. 1-26; xxxiv. 6.] Probably the Samaria of that time included little more than the city of that name, together with some adjoining towns and villages. It is of considerable interest to remember that the places, to which the inhabitants of Samaria were transported, [c 2 Kings xvii. 6.] have been identified with such clearness as to leave no reasonable doubt, that at least some of the descendants of the ten tribes, whether mixed or unmixed with Gentiles, must be sought among what are now known as the Nestorian Christians. [5 Of course, not all the ten tribes. Comp. previous remarks on their migrations.] On the other hand, it is of no practical importance for our present purpose to ascertain the exact localities, whence the new 'Samaritans' were brought to take the place of the Israelitish exiles, [d 2 Kings xvii. 24-26; comp. Ezr. iv. 2, 10.] Suffice it, that
