had heard concerning the Christ at the banks of Jordan. And so, also, although perhaps
'afar off,' it must ever be to us in like temptation.
9. This, of course, on the supposition that the Baptism of Jesus took place at Bethabara,
and hence that the 'wilderness' into which He was driven, was close by. It is difficult to
see why, on any other supposit ion, Jesus returned to Bethabara, since evidently it was not
for the sake of any personal intercourse with John.
10. This is most beautifully suggested by Canon Westcott in his Commentary on the
passage.
Yet, as we view it, and without needlessly imputing malice prepense to the Pharisaic
deputation, their questions seemed but natural. After his previous emphatic disclaimer at
the beginning of his preaching (St. Luke iii. 15), of which they in Jerusalem could
scarcely have been ignorant, the suggestion of his Messiahship - not indeed expressly
made, but sufficiently implied to elicit what the language of St. John11 shows to have
been the most energetic denial - could scarcely have been more than tentative. It was
otherwise with their question whether he was 'Elijah?' Yet, bearing in mind what we
know of the Jewish expectations of Elijah, and how his appearance was always readily
recognised,12 this also could scarcely have been meant in its full literality - but rather as
ground for the further question after the goal and warrant of his mission. Hence also
John's disavowing of such claims is not satisfactorily accounted for by the common
explanation, that he denied being Elijah in the sense of not being what the Jews expected
of the Forerunner of the Messiah: the real, identical Elijah of the days of Ahab; or else,
that he denied being such in the sense of the peculiar Jewish hopes attaching to his
reappearance in the 'last days.' There is much deeper truth in the disclaimer of the Baptist.
It was, indeed, true that, as foretold in the Angelic announcement,13 he was sent 'in the
spirit and power of Elias,' that is, with the same object and the same qualifications.
Similarly, it is true what, in His mournful retrospect of the result of John's mission, and in
the prospect of His own end, the Saviour said of him, 'Elias is indeed come,' but 'they
knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed.'14 But on this very
recognition and reception of him by the Jews depended his being to them Elijah - who
should 'turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of
the just,' and so 'restore all things.' Between the Elijah of Ahab's reign, and him of
Messianic times, lay the wide cleft of quite another dispensation. The 'spirit and power of
Elijah' could 'restore all things,' because it was the dispensation of the Old Testament, in
which the result was outward, and by outward means. But 'the spirit and power' of the
Elijah of the New Testament, which was to accomplish the inward res toration through
penitent reception of the Kingdom of God in its reality, could only accomplish that object
if 'they received it' - if 'they knew him.' And as in his own view, and looking around and
forward, so also in very fact the Baptist, though Divinely such, was not really Elijah to
Israel - and this is the meaning of the words of Jesus: 'And if ye will receive it, this is
Elias, which was for to come.'15
11. 'He confessed, and denied not' (St. John i. 20). Canon Westcott points out, that 'the
combination of a positive and negative' is intended to 'express the fulness of truth,' and
that 'the first term marks the readiness of his testimony, the second its completeness.'