In the testimony which John bears to Jews, as recorded by the Evangelist John, Winer, in his Realworterbnch, finds some difficulty, and thinks that there is a variation, in fact a contrariety, be tween the view which John presents of the person and work of our Lord and that which the other evangelists afford—a view, indeed, of vvhich the Baptist could have known nothing, but which came from the Gnosticizing colours of John's mind. We again refer the reader to Liicke's valu able work. But what has already been remarked will have shewn that Winer and others are in error in the supposition which lies at the bottom of these alleged difficulties and variations—namely, that John the Baptist had no idea of the kingdom of God, higher or more far-reaching than that which was prevalent in the common mind of Ju da. It is in the words, 'Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world' (John i. zg, 36), that the difficulty is thought to be found. What, it is asked, could John the Baptist have known of this assumed function—the remission of sins ? Lticke has, we think, satisfactorily shewe that such a function did enter into the prophetic idea of the Messiah (Is. liii.), or at least into that concep tion of him which the authoritative expounders of religious truth had drawn from the peculiar language of prophecy. And this is unquestionably certain, that the remission of our sins, through the tender mercy of our God' (Luke i. 77), did form a part of the conception of the coming Messiah .vvhich Za charias, John's father, entertained and expressed immediately on the birth of his son ; while in the account given by the synoptical evangelists (Mat thew, Mark, Luke), to the effect that John preached the baptism of repentance, for the rentzssion of sins ' (Luke iii. 3), adding that the Christ would baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire' (Luke iii. 16), may surely be found the essence of the idea conveyed by the words, Behold the Lamb of God,' etc.
The relation which subsisted between John and Jesus, after the emphatic testimony above recorded had been borne, we have not the materials to de scribe with full certainty.
It seems but natural to think, when their hitherto relative position is taken into account, that John would forthwith lay down his office of har binger, which, now that the Sun of Righteousness himself had appeared, was entirely fulfilled and ter minated. Such a step he does not appear to have taken. On the contrary, the lang-uage of Scripture seems to imply that the Baptist church continued side by side with the Messianic (Matt. xi. 3 ; Luke vii. ; Matt. ix. ; Luke xi. ; John iii. 23), 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. They are hostile alike to Judaism and Christianity, and their John and Jesus are alto gether different from the characters bearing these names in our evangelists. Still, though it has been generally assumed that John did not lay down his office, we are not satisfied that the N. T. esta blishes this alleged fact. John may have ceased to execute his own peculiar work, as the forerunner, but may justifiably have continued to bear his most important testimony to the Messiahship 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 before and after that event, may have maintained their individuality as a religious communion. Nor will the student of the N. T. and of ecclesiastical history, who knows how grossly a teacher far greater than John, was, both during his life and after his crucifixion, misun derstood and misrepresented, think it impossible that some misconception or some sinister motive may have had weight in preventing the Baptist church from dissolving and passing into that of Christ.
It was, not improbably, with a view to remove some error of this kind that John sent the embassy of his disciples to Jesus which is recorded in Matt. xi. 3 ; Luke vii. ro. The spiritual course which the teachings of Jesus were more and more taking, and the apparent failure, or at least uneasy post ponement of the promised kingdom in the popular sense, especially the fact that their esteemed mas ter lay in prison, and was in imminent danger of losing his life, may well have led John's discipleg to doubt if Jesus were In truth the expected Mes siah. Appearances, to them, were purely adverse. What step so fit on the part of their master, as that he should send them to Jesus himself? No intimation is found in the record that yohn re quired evidence to give him satisfaction ; and all the language that is used is proper and pertinent if we suppose that the doubt lay only in the minds of his disciples. That the terms employed ad mit the interpretation that John was not without some misgivings (Luke vii. 23 ; Matt. xi. 6), we are free to allow. And if any doubt had grown up in the Baptist's mind it was most probably owing to the defective spirituality of his views ; for even of him Jesus has declared, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he' (Matt. xi. It). Were this the case, it would of itself account not only for the embassy sent by John to Jesus, but also for the continuance and perpetuation of John's separate influence as the founder of a sect.
The manner of John's death is too well known to require to be detailed here (Matt. iv. 12 ; X1V. 3 ; Luke iii. 19 ; Mark vi. ; Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 5. 2). He reproved a tyrant for a heinous crime, and received his reward in decapitation. Josephus, however, assigns a somewhat different cause for this execution from that given in the gospels. The passage bears forcible evidence to the general truth of the evangelical narrative re specting John, and therefore we transcribe it :— Now some of the Jews thought that the destruc tion of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John that was called the Baptist ; for Herod slew him, although he was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness one towards another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism. Now ),vhen others came in crowds about him—for they were greatly moved by hearing his words—Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Machmrus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.' There is no contrariety between this account and that which is given in the N. T. Both may be true : John was condemned in the mind of Herod on political grounds, as endangering his position, and executed on private and ostensible grounds, in order to gratify a malicious but powerful woman. The Scriptural reason was but the pretext for carry ing into effect the determinations of Herod's cabi net. That the fear of Herod was not without some ground may be seen in the popularity which John had gained (Mark xi. 32 ; Lardner, Works, vi. 483).