dead wood was to be consumed in the previous passage. As the true children of Abraham were to abide there, so the wheat is to be gathered into the garner here. The fan of the threshing-floor takes the place of the axe of the woodman, in the figure of the act of judgment.

The last four lines harmonize with the previous discourse; but the first four lines bring into view the conception of two baptisms: the one with water, the other with fire. The Baptist connects the baptism with fire and the judgment of fire without discrimination in time, just as the Old Testament prophets were accustomed to do.' In this particular he seems not to have advanced beyond them. The judgment of fire, with its redemption of the people of God, is the theme of his preaching. Repentance and baptism with water are its preparations. The advent of God is connected, in the mind of the Baptist, with the advent of the Messiah. The Messiah comes to bestow this baptism of fire, and to exercise. judgment. The Baptist seems to have in mind the advent of the Son of Man in the cloud with the Ancient of Days and the fiery stream of the apocalypse of Daniel. The evangelists after the day of Pentecost see in the fire the fiery tongues of the Holy Spirit as well as the fiery flame of the lake of fire of the judgment day.

The Gospel of John tells of a closer recognition of Jesus by the Baptist :

And John bare witness, saying, I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven; and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen, and have borne witness

1 Cf. Joel iii.; Ezek. xxxix. Briggs' Messianic Prophecy, p. 488. 2 Dan. vii. 9-12.

that this is the Son of God. [And so the Baptist transfers his own disciples to Jesus with the words]: Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world! (John i. 29-34.)

The two sides of the work of the Advent were distinctly foretold by the Baptist; namely, the judgment and the redemption. He reiterates the ancient prophecies with reference to the judgment.' But in the doctrine of redemption he advances in the line of the annunciations, and of his father Zachariah, and of Simeon, to a still more vivid conception of the Messiah as the victim, the sin-bearing and suffering Lamb of the great prophet of the exile." Here the Baptist combines the judging Son of Man with the rejected prophetic servant. These two Messianic ideas, kept apart in the Old Testament, converge in his representation. His language is brief, enigmatic, and gives no explanation of the remarkable combination in his mind. This conception of the Baptist is given only by the Gospel of John, preserved in the memory of the apostle who had heard it from the lips of the Baptist himself.

These enigmatic words had pointed him to Jesus as in some way both the Messianic servant and the Son of Man, the mediator of the Day of the Lord, of the divine judgment, and of the redemption of the world.

John the Baptist gives to his disciples a final testimony:

Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Messiah, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice; this my joy therefore is made full. He must increase, but I must decrease. (John iii. 28-30.)

1 Isa. xli. 3-11; Mal. iii,

2 Isa. liii.

CHAPTER III.

THE MESSIAH OF MARK.

THE Gospels give glimpses of the life and teaching of Jesus from four different points of view. Mark is the simplest and the earliest in composition. Almost all

that is given in Mark reappears in Matthew and Luke; both of these Gospels using the earlier Mark. Matthew is distinguished by long discourses of Jesus upon several great themes. We find very much the same matter in other connections in Luke; but only a limited portion of it in Mark. It is evident that the Gospel of Matthew has grouped the words of Jesus about several themes. As it depended chiefly upon Mark for the historical material, it also depended on the Logia of Matthew for these discourses. The Logia of Matthew is the collection chiefly of the sayings of Jesus made by the apostle Matthew in the Aramaic language, according to the testimony of Papias.' This Logia was lost at an early date, but the most if not all of its contents are in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Luke gives them more in the circumstances of their utterance. The Gospel of Matthew arranged them in a topical order without regard to these circumstances. These discourses of Jesus from the Logia of Matthew are rich and pregnant with Mes

1 See p. 41.

sianic material. The Gospel of Matthew gives other sayings of Jesus and reports other acts of Jesus, which were taken probably from other sources, written or oral. The Gospel of Luke uses the historical material of Mark, gives the sayings from the Logia of Matthew their original setting, but it also gives original matter not found in the other evangelists. It is probable that this material was chiefly derived from a third written source. It is evident that Luke seeks historic connection for the life and words of Jesus. He arranges in an orderly chronological and geographical method, distinguishing the ministry in Galilee, in Samaria, in Perea, and in Jerusalem.

The Gospel of John is different from the other three, in that the material is chiefly new. It gives us more the esoteric teaching of Jesus and events of a more private and personal character, all bearing the marks of deep and thorough reflection upon the person and life of Jesus.

In the study of the gospels there is a constant advance in conception, in the order, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John. But the advance from Luke to John is much. greater than that between the three other evangelists, so much so that the three are grouped by scholars as the synoptics over against John, which stands apart by itself.

The different methods of composition of the evangelists, their difference in conception, and their difference in the order and grouping of material, are not favorable to a systematic study of the Messianic idea of Jesus. There are several methods that might be pursued in dealing with it.

(1). We might inquire how far the Jesus of the Gospels was the Messiah of the Old Testament, and then study

his predictions on the basis of that inquiry. The difficulty in this method is that his predictions relate to his own sufferings, death, and resurrection which are included in the evidences of the Messiahship.

(2). We might group the whole question of the Messianic predictions of Jesus and the Messianic fulfilment. of Jesus about the Messianic ideals of the Old Testament. This is a tempting method, but in its use there are several disadvantages. The chief of these is that the Messianic idea of Jesus would be dominated by the results of the synthesis of the Old Testament. The Messianic idea of Jesus is so original, extensive, and profound, that it should be studied by itself and shaped by its own internal principles.

(3). We might first study the Messianic idea of Jesus, as it is given in the Gospels, and then in this light inquire how far the Messiah of the Gospels is the Messiah of the Old Testament. We shall construct our material in accordance with this method. But this method might be used in several ways. The material given in the discourses of Jesus in the form of prediction is greater than we find in any prophet of the Old Testament. It is so great in amount and so various in form that it is necessary to divide it into several chapters.

(a). We would prefer some chronological scheme. But such a chronological scheme is sufficiently difficult in the study of the life of the Messiah. It is still more difficult when we have to put his discourses in their historical relations. Any attempt to do this burdens us with numberless questions of historical criticism where it is impossible at present to attain definite results in some of the most important passages. Many attempts have been made to trace a development in the Messianic consciousness of Jesus and in his doctrine of the king