sole reign), in the year 26 a.d.36 According to our former computation, Jesus would then
be in His thirtieth year.37 The scene of John's first public appearance was in 'the
wilderness of Judæa,' that is, the wild, desolate district around the mouth of the Jordan.
We know not whether John baptized in this place,38 nor yet how long he continued there;
but we are expressly told, that his stay was not confined to that locality. 39 Soon
afterwards we find him at Bethabara,40 which is farther up the stream. The outward
appearance and the habits of the Messenger corresponded to the character and object of
his Mission. Neither his dress nor his food was that of the Essenes;41 and the former, at
least, like that of Elijah,42 43 whose mission he was now to 'fulfil.' This was evinced alike
by what he preached, and by the new symbolic rite, from which he derived the name of
'Baptist.' The grand burden of his message was: the announcement of the approach of 'the
Kingdom of Heaven,' and the needed preparation of his hearers for that Kingdom. The
latter he sought, positively, by admonition, and negatively, by warnings, while he
directed all to the Coming One, in Whom that Kingdom would become, so to speak,
individualised. Thus, from the first, it was 'the good news of the Kingdom,' to which all
else in John's preaching was but subsidiar y.
35. Wieseler has, I think, satisfactorily established this. Comp. Beitr. pp. 191-194.
36. 779 a.u.c.
37. St. Luke speaks of Christ being 'about thirty years old' at the time of His baptism. If
John began His public ministry in the autumn, and some mo nths elapsed before Jesus was
baptized, our Lord would have just passed His thirtieth year when He appeared at
Bethabara. We have positive evidence that the expression 'about' before a numeral meant
either a little more or a little less than that exact number. See Midr. on Ruth i. 4 ed.
Warsh. p. 39 b .
38. Here tradition, though evidently falsely, locates the Baptism of Jesus.
39. St. Luke iii. 3.
40. St. John i. 28.
41. In reference not only to this point, but in general, I would refer to Bishop Lightfoot's
masterly essay on the Essenes in his Appendix to his Commentary on Colossians
(especially here, pp. 388, 400). It is a remarkable confirmation of the fact that, if John
had been an Essene, his food could not have been 'locusts' that the Gospel of the
Ebionites, who, like the Essenes, abstained from animal food, omits the mention of the
'locusts,' of St. Matt. iii. 4. (see Mr. Nicholson's 'The Gospel of the Hebrews,' pp. 34, 35).
But proof positive is derived from Jer. Nedar. 40 b, where, in case of a vow of abstinence
from flesh, fish and locusts are interdicted.
42. 2 Kings i. 3.
43. Our A.V. wrongly translates 'a hairy man,' instead of a man with a hairy (camel's hair)
raiment.' This s eems afterwards to have become the distinctive dress of the prophets
(comp. Zech. xiii. 4).
Concerning this 'Kingdom of Heaven,' which was the great message of John, and the
great work of Christ Himself,44 we may here say, that it is the whole Old Testame nt
sublimated, and the whole New Testament realised. The idea of it did not lie hidden in