Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - John 1:19 - 1:34
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
FIRST SECTION
The Reception which Christ, the Light of the World, finds in His Life of Love among the men akin to the Light, the Elect
Joh_1:19 to Joh_4:54
I.
John the Baptist, and his public and repeated Testimony concerning Christ. Jesus accredited as the Christ, attested the Son of God, the eternal Lord, and the Lamb of God.
Joh_1:19-34
(Joh_1:19-28 : Pericope for the 4th Sunday in Advent.)
19And this is the record [testimony] of John, when the Jews sent [to him] priests and Levites from Jerusalem, to ask him, Who art thou? 20And he confessed, and denied not; but [and he] confessed, I am not [Not I am] the Christ. 21And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias [Elijah]? And he saith, I am not. Art 22thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then [in official demand] said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? 23He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said [Isaiah] the prophet Esaias [ch. John 40:3]. 24And they which were sent were of the Pharisees [And they had been sent by the Pharisees]. 25And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that [the] Christ, nor Elias [Elijah], neither that [the] prophet? 26John answered them, saying, I baptize with [in] water; but there standeth one among you [in the midst of you there standeth one], whom ye know not: 27he it is [This is he] who coming after me, is preferred [taketh place, or, hath come to be] before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. 28These things were done in Bethabara [Bethany] beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
Joh_1:19. And this is.—The gospel history itself begins with the testimony of John the Baptist. Comp. Matthew 3; Mark 1; Luke 3. The question is whether the same testimony is meant here, as in Joh_1:15. Origen supposed this to be another testimony; Meyer thinks it the same. Evidently in Joh_1:15 a general testimony, with ìáñôõñåῖ , is distinguished from a special, êáὶ êÝêñáãå . This most public testimony concerning Jesus before the rulers is undoubtedly meant here. It is a definite pointing of the rulers of the Jews to the person of the Messiah, not related so distinctly by the Synoptists, but of the highest importance for the history of the temptation. This: áὕôç , the following [it is the predicate, ἡ ìáñôõñßá the subject. A verbal testimony is meant. Record now refers to written evidence.—P. S.]. " Ïôå points also to a particular event, which took place at a particular time. That this event must have followed the baptism of Jesus is clear; because, according to Joh_1:31-33, it was that which gave the Baptist himself his first certainty respecting the person of Jesus; and this certainty he expresses here, Joh_1:26-27. Likewise Joh_1:29. Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, place the baptism between the two testimonies, Joh_1:19 and Joh_1:29; Ewald, between Joh_1:31 and Joh_1:32; all against the testimony of the section before us. That John knew of the existence of the Messiah earlier, and with human reverence presumed that he found Him in the person of Jesus, Mat_3:14, is not inconsistent with his still needing a divine attestation. As regards the history of the temptation, its termination coincides with the present testimony; for Jesus, the next day, comes again behind the Baptist, and soon afterwards (not forty days after) returns to Galilee.
When the Jews from Jerusalem.—[The Synoptists, who wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem, seldom use the term Jews as distinct from Christians (Matthew five times, Mark seven times, Luke five times); John, who wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem and after the final separation of the Synagogue from the Christian church, uses it very often (over seventy times in the Gospel and twice in the Apoc.).—P. S.] Ἰïõäáῖïé , probably as yet primarily in the neutral sense, though already conceived as about to become a hostile body, on the way to apostasy from true Judaism in opposition to the Messiah. The conception is the historical one of the Jews as the theocratic people, as in Joh_2:13; Joh_3:1; Joh_5:1, then branching into a friendly one (Joh_4:22; Joh_18:33) and a hostile (Joh_5:10; Joh_7:1; Joh_8:31; Joh_10:24, etc.), which in the sequel prevails. In the latter sense the term therefore denotes the Jews as Judaists. Meyer therefore is not perfectly accurate when he says: “John, in his writing, lets the Jews, as the old communion, from which the Christian has already entirely withdrawn, appear steadily in a hostile position to the Lord and His work, the ancient theocratic people as an opposition party to the church of God and its Head.” The Jews do certainly appear in this character predominantly in John, and with good reason Meyer observes that this can furnish no argument, against the genuineness of His Gospel (against Fischer and Hilgenfeld). The expression, The Jews, as he also remarks, varies according to the context; here it is the Jews from Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin.
Priests and Levites.—[The two classes of persons employed about the temple service, Jos_3:3. In the wider sense, Levites designates the descendants of Levi; in a narrower sense, as here, the subordinate officers of the Jewish hierarchy, as distinct from the priests of the family of Aaron.—P. S.] The Levites as an attendant body were designed, under certain circumstances, to arrest the Baptist, and at any rate to add state as a convoy of police, or to enhance the official dignity of the priests. It is a touch of historical accuracy.
Who art thou?—i.e., in thy official, theocratic character. That they supposed He might lay claim to the Messiahship, is evident from the answer of John. They had official right, according to Deu_18:21, to inquire into his character and his credentials as a prophet. They had occasion to do so in his baptism (Joh_1:25), not only because the baptism connected itself with the kingdom of Messiah (Eze_36:25; Eze_37:23; Zec_13:1), but also because the baptism was a declaration concerning the whole congregation of the people, that it was unclean (Hag_2:14), which could easily offend the pride of the Pharisees. Besides, the people were already inclined to take him for the Messiah, Luk_3:15. According to Joh_1:24, the delegates were of the party of the Pharisees. These had probably moved in the Sanhedrin, that the deputation be sent, because the Messianic question was of much more importance to them than to the Sadducees, and because they, with their sensuous Messianic hopes, took the matter of the credentials of the Messiah more strictly in their more external sense.
Joh_1:20. And he confessed, and denied not.—Should this mean only; He denied not his own real character? he confessed in this matter the truth? The double expression, positive and negative, would be rather strong for this. The question of the Sanhedrin set before him the temptation to declare himself the Christ. But in so doing he would have denied the Christ whom he already knew, and denied his own better, prophetic knowledge. We suppose, therefore, that his confessing and not denying in regard to himself imply at the same time his confessing and not denying in regard to Christ. This is indicated also by the emphatic order of the words: ἐãὼ ïὐê åἰìß , which is supported by the best authorities as against ïὐê åἰìὶ ἑãþ . Meyer: “I for my part,” implying that he knows another, who is the Messiah.—The reserve of the Baptist towards the deputation shows the mighty prophet, who understood them. He leaves each successive development of his deposition to be drawn from him, till the moment for his testimony arrives. This mysterious bearing is no doubt intended also to humble and press the self-conceited spirit.
Joh_1:21. What then? Art thou Elijah?—The question is a half inference. He who comes with such pretensions must be, if not the Messiah Himself, at least the Elijah who precedes Him. They refer to the Messianic prophecy, Mal_4:5. The pure sense of this prophecy, that an ideal Elijah should precede the Messiah, which John actually was (Luk_1:17; Mat_11:14; Mat_17:10), had early become corrupted among the Jews, as is shown by the very translation of the passage in the Septuagint. Ἠëßáí ôὸíèåóâßôçí (Elijah the Tishbite). Thus these messengers understood the word entirely in a superstitious sense, taking it literally for the actual Elijah. Hence John answers categorically: I am not [not the Tishbite, whom you mean.] But he adds no explanation; for this would have involved him in an exegetical controversy, and turned him from his main object, which was to testify of Christ.
Art thou the prophet?—The next question in the spirit of their theology; hence occurring immediately. The prophet, with the article; the well-known prophet; a personage in their Messianic theology presumed to be familiar. According to Chrysostom [Bengel], Lücke, Bleek, Meyer, [Alford], the prophet meant would be the one spoken of in Deu_18:15; but this we must certainly, with Hengstenberg and Tholuck, deny, for this prophecy was at least in Act_3:22; Act_7:37 referred to the Messiah. It is a question whether the passages, Joh_6:14; Joh_7:40, refer to the passage in Deuteronomy. From Mat_16:14 it is sufficiently evident that an expectation of Jeremiah or some one of the prophets as the forerunner of the Messiah was cherished. Probably this expectation was connected with the doctrine of the woes of the Messiah, that is, with what was known of the suffering Messiah, The wailing Jeremiah, or one of the later prophets of affliction, seemed better fitted for the fore-runner of the suffering Messiah, than the stern, judicial Elijah. The gradual shaping of this expectation of Jeremiah as a guardian angel in the theocratic day of suffering, appears in 2Ma_2:7; 2Ma_15:13. This particular prophet, therefore, is meant, who should complete the forerunning office of Elijah, and probably precede him. This expectation also was here literally and superstitiously taken. Hence again: No!—the short answer ïὔ Luthardt quite falsely refers to the prophets in the second part of Isaiah (c. 40.). Against this see Meyer [p. 101, note].
Joh_1:22. Then said they unto him, Who art thou?—Now they come out with the categorical official demand of an explanation. Yet we must notice that they do not yet say: Thou art unauthorized. They distinguish the prophetic appearance of the Baptist in general from his baptism. They wished primarily that he should explain himself concerning his prophetic mission. [Alford: “They ever ask about his person: he ever refers them to his office. He is no one—a voice merely: it is the work of God, the testimony to Christ, which is every thing. So the formalist ever in the church asks, Who is he? while the witness for Christ only exalts, only cares for Christ’s work.”—P. S.]
Joh_1:23. I am the voice of one crying.—Isa_40:3. As Christ, when He calls Himself the Son of Man, applied to Himself as Messiah a passage of prophecy which had been unnoticed and obscured by the Jewish Messianic theology, Dan_7:13, so did the Baptist when he called himself the voice of one crying in the wilderness. By this the same subject was meant, as by the Elijah of Malachi, but the passage had not been corrupted by a carnal interpretation, and was perfectly fitted to denote the unassuming spirit of the Baptist, who would be wholly absorbed in his mission to be a herald of the coming Messiah. The quotation is after the Septuagint, except åὐèýíáôå instead of ἐôïéìÜóáôå . It appears from this passage that the Synoptists (Mat_3:3), following John’s own declaration respecting himself, have applied that passage of the prophet in its direct intent to him.
Joh_1:24. Were of the Pharisees.—This conveys primarily the explanation that they did not understand a Scripture for which they had no distinct exegetical tradition; at least they knew not how to apply the passage cited to John. Then, that they were disposed to allow the right to baptize only to one of the three persons named: the Messiah Himself and His two fore-runners. Baptism was the symbol of the purification which should precede the Messianic kingdom. The tract Kiddushin says (see Tholuck): “Elijah comes, and will declare clean and unclean.”
Joh_1:26. I baptize in water.—In this answer Heracleon, and Lücke and De Wette after him, have missed the striking point. According to Meyer, John now explains himself more particularly respecting what he has said. To the question: Why baptizest thou? he answers: I baptize only with water; the baptism of the spirit is reserved to the Messiah. To the reminder: Thou art not the Messiah, etc., he answers: The Messiah is already in the midst of you, therefore is this baptism needful. The matter resolves itself simply into John’s declaration: The Messiah is the proper Baptist of the prophets; and his implied assertion: Your interpretation of Eze_36:25 is false. But because this true Baptist is here, I with my water-baptism prepare for His baptizing with the Spirit. It is at the same time implied that it is rather the Messiah who accredits him, than he the Messiah. In water. See Mat_3:11.
But there standeth one among you.—If the ἔáὐôüò ἐóôéí and the ὅò ̓́ ìðñïóèÝí ìïõ ãÝãïíåí be omitted, as they are in Codd. B. C. L., the clause would proceed: One whom ye know not, cometh after me, etc. We retain these words, which are doubted by Tholuck and Meyer; because John in Joh_1:15 has noted this formula as the most public testimony of the Baptist.—Whom ye know not.—A reproof: Ye ought to have known him already: a hint: Ye must now learn to know him. The words: Standeth, or hath come, among you can hardly refer only to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem and His obscurity in Nazareth. They look to the baptism of Christ as the beginning of His public appearance. The objections of Baur and Baümlein to this are groundless.
Joh_1:27. He it is, who coming after me [behind me].—See Joh_1:15.—Whose shoe’s string, etc. [In the East, people wore only sandals, or the soles of a shoe, bound fast to the foot by strings]. See Mat_3:11. That is: Whom I am not worthy to serve as a slave. It is a parallel, or a concrete form, of the expression, Joh_1:15 : on ὅôé ðñῶôüò ìïí ἦí .
Joh_1:28. In Bethabara beyond Jordan.—Rather Bethany, see the Textual Notes. But not the Bethany on the Mount of Olives, Joh_11:18. The place seems to have been a ford on the further side of the Jordan in Peræa, not otherwise known under this name of Bethany. Origen explored that region, and found a Bethabara (see Jdg_7:24) about opposite Jericho. The conjecture of Possinus and Hug, that the name áֵּéú àֲðִéָä , domus navis, expresses the same as áֵּéú òֲáָøָä , domus transitus (ford-house), is not invalidated by the suggestion (of Meyer) that this etymology does not suit Bethany on the Mount of Olives; for the name of Bethany might have arisen in different ways. Bolten and Paulus, by a period after ἐãÝíåôï , made out the Bethany on the Mount of Olives; Kuinoel made the “beyond,” this side; Baur invented the fiction that the author would make Jesus begin, as well as finish His ministry in Bethany.—The statement that the deputation received their answer from the Baptist at Bethany, beyond Jordan, leads to the inference that on their return through the wilderness they already came unintentionally into the neighborhood of Jesus at Jericho.
Joh_1:29. The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him.—The Evangelist finds the days now following so important that he enumerates them in order; the first, Joh_1:29; the second, Joh_1:35; the third, Joh_1:43. Hereupon Luthardt observes, p. John 76: The Evangelist begins and closes with a week; on the third day those disciples come to him, on the fourth Simon, and on the fifth Philip and Nathanael join the others, on the sixth Jesus is journeying with His disciples, on the seventh in Cana. If this exact reckoning of a week were designed (so that Jesus, according to Luthardt, would, as it were, keep a Sabbath in Cana), the fourth day would have to be made distinct, and the third (John 2) marked as the seventh. It is much more natural to let the three days come so that the calling of Peter falls late in the evening of the day of Joh_1:35. The third day (Joh_2:1) is, according to Origen, Baur and Meyer, the third from the day of Joh_1:43. Baur gives as a reason for this (which is a change from a former view of his) a silly fancy, that the six days should correspond to the six water-pots in John 2. Meyer better: If it were the third day from that of Joh_1:35, or the day following that of Joh_1:43, we should have ôῇ ἐðáýñéïí again. Against his longer reckoning (Joh_2:1 : the third day from that of Joh_1:43) we must, however, observe that the proper starting-point of the reckoning thus far is still the day of the accrediting of Jesus as the Messiah on the part of John. It is important to the Evangelist to set forth what a life from day to day was then begun. On the first day, the pointing of the disciples to Jesus; on the next, three or four disciples gained; on the clay after, two more. If now we suppose that the third day is the same with the ἐðáýñéïí of Joh_1:43, or is reckoned from the accrediting of Jesus, Joh_1:19, this explains the fact that the marriage-feast had already continued nearly three days when Jesus arrived, and that the wine was exhausted. The line between the day in the wilderness and the day of Joh_1:43 still remains somewhat uncertain.—Our first date, Joh_1:29, denotes the day after that declaration of the Baptist to the deputation from Jerusalem, not one of the days following. Jesus returns from the temptation. The reason why He returns to John is not given; yet it is at hand. John must know that Jesus intended to disappoint the chiliastic Messianic hopes of the Jews. He must also bear witness of the course which Jesus intended to take; he must be guarded to the utmost against the vexation of imagining that Jesus would adopt a different course from what he might have expected in the Messiah accredited by him. And then this also was what led to John’s transfer of his disciples to the discipleship of Jesus, though the outward attachment of the Baptist himself to Jesus was not to be expected.
Behold the Lamb of God.—The Baptist knew from three sources the appointment of the Messiah to suffering: (1) The experience of suffering by the pious, especially the prophets, as well as the import of the sacrificial types and the prophecies of the suffering Messiah. (2) The baptism of Christ, which indicated to him that Christ must bow under the servant-form of sinners, or which was an omen of His suffering, see Mat_3:14. (3) A decisive point, which has not been noticed: The Baptist has directed the deputation from Jerusalem to the Messiah, who was in the vicinity. He may therefore suppose that they have come to know him, And now he sees Christ coming back from the wilderness, alone, in earnest, solemn mood, with the expression of separation from the world. He could not have been a man of the Spirit, without having perceived in the Spirit that an adversity, or a sacrificial suffering of premonitory conflict, had taken place. This accounts also for his first exclamation being: Behold the Lamb of God!—and the supposition that the Evangelist has put his own knowledge into the mouth of the Baptist (Strauss, Weisse), loses all support. That the subsequent human wavering of the Baptist, Mat_11:3, is not inconsistent with his present divine enlightenment and inspiration, needs no explanation; the opposition between the divine and human elements is nowhere entirely transcended in the Old Testament prophets. And Mat_11:3 itself proves that John had till then depended with assurance upon Christ, and even then could not give Him up under temptation. The Baptist, says Meyer in explanation, had not a sudden flash of natural light, or a rising conviction, but a revelation. But sudden flashes produced by rising convictions can hardly be separated from revelations, unless we conceive the latter as immediate, magical effects. With a natural light we have nothing to do.
Now comes the question: What is meant by the Lamb of God? By the article it is designated as appointed, by the genitive as belonging to God, appointed for Him for a sacrifice. Isaiah 53.; Rev_5:6; Rev_13:8. The phrase implies also, selected by God. The question arises, however, whether the expression is to be referred to the paschal lamb (with Grotius, Lampe, Hofmann, Luthardt [Bengel, Olshausen, Hengstenberg], and others), to the sin-offering (with Baumgarten-Crusius and Meyer), or to the prophetic passage, Isa_53:7 (with Chrysostom) [Origen, Cyril, Lücke, Thol., De Wette, Brückner, Meyer (5th ed.), Ewald]. For it is clear that we are not, with Herder, to suppose it a mere figure of a religiously devoted servant of God. We are evidently directed primarily to that passage of Isaiah 53; for John had taken the description of his own mission from the second part of Isaiah, and the Messianic import of the passage named cannot be evaded (see Lücke, I. p. 408 sqq.; Tholuck, p. 90; my Leben Jesu, II. p. 466), and the particular features suit. [To the same chapter in Isaiah reference is had Mat_8:17; Act_8:32; 1Pe_2:22-25.—P. S.] The Septuagint reads ἀìíüò for the Hebrew øָçֵì , Joh_1:7. It is said in Joh_1:10, He made “His soul an offering for sin,” àָùָׁí . It is said of Him in Joh_1:4 : “He hath borne ( ðָùָׂà , Sept. öÝñåé ) our griefs.” Specially important is Joh_1:11 : “By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear ( éִñְáֹּì ) their iniquities.” And the bearing, in connection with the idea of the offering for sin and the vicarious expiation, involves the idea of taking away, carrying off; it is therefore of no account that the Baptist says áἴñåéí , and the Septuagint öÝñåéí (see 1Jn_3:5), for it is the way of the Seventy to express the bearing of sin by öÝñåéí . The interpretations: put away (Kuinoel), support (Gabler), abstractly considered, deviate from the notion of atonement, though they are included in the concrete term áἴñåéí : suffer—endure—piacularly bear —take away and blot out. Latterly the term has been emptied of its element of expiation again by Hofmann and Luthardt, and referred to the then beginning suffering of Christ through the sins of men in His human weakness, without reference to His death (sea against this Meyer and Tholuck). Of course, on the other hand, the word of the Baptist is not to be referred, as a mature dogmatic perception, to the future death of Christ. Yet a germ-perception of the atoning virtue of the holy suffering even the ancient prophets had, Isaiah 53. And how powerfully the thought had seized the Baptist, appears from his naming sin ( ôὴí ἁìáñôßáí ) in the singular, as the burden which Christ has to bear, and besides as the sin of the world.—But if the prophet, Isaiah 53., evidently himself went back to the notion of the expiatory sacrifice, then the Baptist also did the same. Lambs were by preference taken for the sin-offering, Lev_5:6; see Tholuck. Christ, as the Lamb appointed by God, is a sin-offering, which atones for the guilt of the world. The fact that men have made Him, over and above this, even a curse-bearer, and that under the direction of God, is not included in the idea before us, yet neither is it excluded by it. But as regards the further step backward, to the paschal lamb, which Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and others combined with the reference to Isaiah 53., it is contested by Tholuck and Meyer. Justly, so far as the paschal lamb in the stricter sense served as a meal of thank-offering; but unjustly, so far as the paschal lamb in the wider sense formed the root of the whole system of sacrifice, and pointed by the blood on the door-posts to the atoning offering, nay, even ran back to the curse-offering, the extermination of the Egyptian first-born.—Mark further the rapt manner in which the Baptist utters the great word: Behold the Lamb of God! The sequel shows that he speaks thus to his disciples.
Joh_1:30. This is he of whom I said.—Meyer properly observes: These words refer not to the testimony in Joh_1:26-27, but to all that John had previously said of the coming Messiah. John had described the divine mark of the Messiah, before he knew the particular person; now he joyfully shows that he rightly described Him, and said none too much.
Joh_1:31. And I knew him not.—(Not: Even I knew him not.)—That is, I did not with divine certainty, by revelation, know Him;—though in his human feeling he reverenced Him in unrestrained foreboding (against Lücke, Ewald). Hence no contradiction to Matthew (against Strauss, Baur). But now he shows how he came to this knowledge. As he was to introduce the Messiah in official authentication, he must have a token from above. This was given him.
But that he should be made manifest.—The ultimate and highest object of his baptism did not exclude the tributary purposes of preparing a people for the Lord. According to the Jewish tradition in Justin (Dial, cum Tryph., ch. viii.) the Messiah was to remain unknown [ ἄãíùóôïò ] till Elijah should anoint Him, and thereby make Him known to all [ öáíåñüí ðᾶóé ðïéÞóῃ ].—Baptizing in water [ ἐí ( ôῷ ) ὕäáôé ].—“An humble description of himself in comparison with Him who baptizes with the Spirit.” Meyer.
Joh_1:32. And John bare witness, saying.—We might expect the mark of the Messiah given to John to come before his testimony, i.e., Joh_1:33 before Joh_1:32. Hence Lücke and others read this verse as a parenthesis. But this exhibition of the testimony of John is in two parts. The Evangelist distinguishes the first exclamation of John respecting Christ as the Lamb of God from the then following testimony of the way in which he came to know Him. Thus we have to make a new paragraph at Joh_1:32. John bears witness of the way in which he came to know Jesus in His baptism as the Messiah.
I saw the Spirit descending.—Here we must (1) assert against Baur, that the Baptist is speaking of the actual event of the baptism; this is clear from the connection of Joh_1:32 with Joh_1:31; (2) dispute [Theodore of Mops.], Tholuck, [Alford] and others in the idea that the Baptist had the manifestation alone, and that it was an inward transaction, excluding externality (though not excluding all objective element). “Even the áùìáôéêῷ åἴäåé in Luk_3:22, cannot prove the outwardness of the phenomenon; for it rather expresses only the unusual fact that the dove served as the symbol of the Spirit.” Tholuck. Against this are (1) the fact that the event was given by an inward voice to the Baptist as the token. On the supposition of mere inwardness the inward voice alone would have sufficed; at all events it must have come at the same time with the token. (2) The mention of the appearance of the Spirit, ὡò ðåñéóôåñÜ , as a dove. Merely inwardly seen, this would be only an apparition, not a token. (3) èåÜïìáé is used, as in Joh_1:14, of a seeing which is neither merely outward, nor yet merely inward. (4) The participation of Christ; according to the Synoptists, in the seeing of the phenomenon; to which must be added the voice: “Thou art my beloved Son!”—showing that Christ was the centre of the whole appearance. (5) The analogy of the signs (rushing wind and tongues of fire) at the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. See this Comm. on Mat_3:13-17; p. 77. Tholuck: “The point of comparison between the symbol (symbolical phenomenon, we should say) and the Spirit, Theodore of Mopsuestia takes to be the affectionate tenderness and attachment of the dove to men; Calvin, its gentleness; Neander, its tranquil flying; Baumgarten-Crusius, a motherly, brooding virtue, consecrating the water (Gen_1:1); most, from Mat_10:16, purity and innocence. This last is certainly to be taken as the main point, yet it is connected with the gentle, noiseless flight of this particular bird. In the Targum on Son_2:12, the dove is regarded as the symbol of the Spirit of God.” We suppose that the phenomenon and the symbol are to be distinguished; the phenomenon we take to have been a soft, hovering brightness, resembling the flashes from a dove floating down in the sunlight (Psa_68:13 : “Yet shall ye be as the wings of a dove covered with silver, and her feathers with yellow gold;” see Act_2:3); and the symbol, no one virtue of the dove, but her virtues, as a of spiritual life, which, as such, never consists in a single virtue (see Mat_10:16); hence purity, loveliness, gentleness, friendliness towards men, and vital warmth. On the reference of the dove to the church see the Comm. on Mat_3:13-17; p. 78. Hence the “abiding upon him” [ êáὶ ἔìåéíåí ἐð ’ áὐôüí , ὲðß , with the accusative signifies the direction to—] is part of the sign; in the continuance of the radiance the Baptist received assurance that the Spirit abode upon Christ.
Misinterpretations of this event: (a) The Ebionitic: An impartation of the Spirit, beginning with the baptism, (b) The Gnostic: The Logos uniting Himself with the Man Jesus;—a view dragged in again by Hilgenfeld. (c) Baur: The ëüãïò and the ðíåῦìá ἅãéïí are, according to John’s representation, identical. Attempted interpretations: (1) Frommann: The preparation of the Logos for coming forth out of his immanent union with God: (2) Lücke, Neander, etc.: The awakening of the divine-human consciousness. (3) Hofmann, Luthardt: The impartation of official powers. (4) Baumgarten-Crusius, Tholuck: The impartation of the Spirit for transmission to mankind. (5) Meyer: Not an impartation to Jesus, but only an objective sign ( óçìåῖïí ) divinely granted to the spiritual intuition of the Baptist.
We find in this occurrence not merely the full development of Christ’s consciousness of Himself personally as the God-Man, but also of the accompanying consciousness of His Messianic mission, as a calling, in particular, to self-humiliation in order to exaltation;—a development produced by a corresponding communication of the Holy Ghost without measure, which should make Him, in the course of His humiliation towards exaltation, the Baptist of the Spirit (Geistestäufer) for the whole world (see Isaiah 11; Joel 3; Matthew 28) This consciousness is (1) that of being the Son of God, and (2) that of the divine good pleasure blessing the path of humiliation upon which in His baptism He entered.
Joh_1:33. And I knew him not.—Looking back to the earlier stage, and strongly emphasizing the ignorance by the repetition. Then the Baptist tells us how the miraculous appearance became to him the sign. In the nature of the case, this mark must have been given him before the occurrence itself. The description of Christ as the true Baptist, the Baptizer with the Holy Ghost, corresponds with John’s humble sense of the impotence of his own baptism of water.
Joh_1:34. And I have seen.—In the perfect. Plainly this cannot be understood of a mere internal process.—And have borne witness.—Not: I consider myself as having now testified (De Wette); nor: I have testified and do now testify (Lücke). The Baptist undoubtedly looks back with joyful mind to the testimony which he bore before the rulers of the Jews. He has borne it, and that a plain, straight-forward testimony: borne witness to this Man, Jesus of Nazareth, and testified that He is not merely Messiah, but also the Son of God. As if he would say: I have lived. My mission is in its substance accomplished (see Joh_3:29). Hence from that moment forth he points his disciples to Jesus.
2. The two testimonies of the Baptist form the contents of this section: Christ the Lord (the Old Testament manifestation of God, the Angel of the Lord, Jehovah): (1) Christ the Lamb of God (the Servant of God); (2) Christ the Son of God.
3. From the first testimony it is evident that Christ was accredited by John in an entirely official manner; in the second we see how Christ was accredited by John himself most distinctly by God. Likewise, that John points his disciples to Christ, and that every genuine fore-runner does the same, while the spurious fore-runners, the chief priests, keep their disciples to themselves.
4. On the import of the baptism of Jesus see the exegesis under Joh_1:32, and Com. on Matth. Joh_3:13, p. 76.
5. Between the 28th and 29th verses falls the close of the history of the temptation of Jesus, and with it the settlement of His Messianic calling or, as Reinhard puts it, His plan. He comes out of the wilderness with the clear sense of His destiny and His willingness to become the Lamb of God. This then the prophetic Baptist perceives in His appearance through the Spirit.
6. It is noticeable that the temptation of John by the Sanhedrin, and that of the Lord by Satan, coincides in time. The Baptist says: I am not the Christ; Jesus says: I am not the Christ according to the perverted antichristian hopes of the hierarchy, according to the notion of the ungodly world.
7. Gerlach: “In the fact that he alone knew the Messiah, while the entire people and their rulers knew Him not, John would give them the credentials of his own prophetic mission.”
8. The ultimate object of the mission of John the Baptist: To make Christ known by official, attestation according to the Old Testament law before the rulers of the Jews, by a testimony of the New Testament Spirit among His disciples. Malachi pointed to John (Elijah), John points to Christ, and thus the Messianic prophecy converges at last to the distinctness of an index finger.
Starke:—Before persons whose candor and fear of God we should most trust, we are many a time most on our guard.—Wo to the city and to the country whose watchmen are blind.—Canstein: Christians in general, and preachers in particular, should not arrogate to themselves what belongs to Christ, but point their hearers away from themselves and to Christ, to look for all their salvation from Him.—Hedinger: No one may take to himself credit, or receive praise beyond due measure and contrary to humility, 2Co_10:13.—In calling himself a voice, he not only hints that his preaching is from heaven, but also that in him nothing is to be honored save his voice, nay, that all he is, is, as it were, nothing but voice.—Canstein: We have to do not with the person (humanly taken), but with the matter itself.—Cramer: Spare neither friends nor foes to confess the truth.—Jesus is in the midst of us, though we see Him not.—Osiander: To the minister of the church it belongs to preach and to administer the sacraments, but Christ gives the increase, and pours out the Spirit.—Zeisius: A true teacher should, after the example of John, be well instructed, authenticated, and established.
Gerlach:—The decisive self-denial of John in his relation to Christ gave and still gives the greatest weight to his testimony. This self-denial was and still is, to unbelief, incomprehensible; in this, that a man could so clearly know his mission and its limits.—Braune: Whom John had announced as coming with axe, winnowing-fan, and fire, Him he now commended as the Lamb of God which taken away the sin of the world.
Heubner:—On the rights of the magistracy in regard to religion.—What privileges has the spiritual power?—The limits of obedience.—Who art thou? as it were the: Who is there? demanded of every one in the ministry of the kingdom of God.—Tycho Brahe’s symbol: Esse Polius quam haberi.—Christian self-valuation.—Persius: Quem deus esse jussit, disce.—Christian choices of calling.—Assurance of an eternal mission.—In John the testimony of the best and noblest of his time and of the ages before is set forth.—Schleiermacher: The baptism of John stood in a manner between the law and the Gospel.—John’s testimony concerning Christ a type of ours.—Couard: An evangelical preacher will and must bear witness only of Christ.—To what the question: Who art thou? would lead us, if put to ourselves.—Rieger: John the model of an evangelical preacher.
[Schaff:—Behold the Lamb of God, Joh_1:20 (repeated Joh_1:36). (1) The person who speaks: John the Baptist, in the name of the whole Old Testament, responded to by the experience of the Christian believer. (2) The person spoken of: Christ, (a) compared to a lamb for His innocence and purity (“a lamb without blemish and without spot,” 1Pe_1:19), meekness, gentleness, and quiet submission, (“as a lamb led to the slaughter,” Isaiah 53); (b) called the Lamb foretold by the prophet Isaiah in that remarkable passage on the suffering Messiah, Isa_53:7. Comp. also the paschal lamb, the blood of which, being sprinkled on the door-post, saved the Israelites from the destroying angel (1Co_5:7), and the lambs of the daily sacrifices, Exo_29:38; (c) the Lamb of God, appointed and ordained by God from eternity, dedicated to God, and approved by God. (3) The office of Christ: to bear, and by bearing, i.e., by His propitiatory sacrifice, to take away the sin, the accumulated mass of the sins, of the world, i. e., of the entire human race (1Jn_2:12), consequently also my sins. (4) The exhortation Behold, with the eye of a living faith, which appropriates the atoning sacrifice of Christ.—Augustine: How weighty must be the blood of the Lamb, by whom the world was made, to turn the scale when weighed against the world.—Olshausen: The sacrificial lamb which bears the sin, also takes it away; there is no bearing of sin without removing the same.—Ryle: The Lamb of God has made atonement sufficient for all mankind, though efficient to none but believers.—Matthew Henry: John was more industrious to do good than to appear great. Those speak best for Christ that say least of themselves, whose own works praise them, not their own lips.—The same: Secular learning, honor and power seldom dispose men’s minds to the reception of divine light.—J. C. Ryle, (abridged): The greatest saints have always been men of John Baptist’s spirit.; “clothed with humility” (1Pe_5:5), not seeking their own honor, ever willing to decrease if Christ might only increase. Hence God has honored and exalted them (Luk_14:11).—Humility is the beginning of Christian graces.—The learned Pharisees are examples of the blindness of unconverted men.—Christ is “still standing” among multitudes who neither see, nor hear, nor believe. It will be better on the last day to never have been born, than to have had Christ “standing among us” without knowing Him.—P. S.]
Footnotes:
Joh_1:19.—Codd. B. C *., Lachmann add ðñὸò áὐôüí . Not decisive. [ à . C.3 L. al., text, rec., Tischend., 8th ed., omit it. Alf., with Lachm., inserts it.—P. S.]
Joh_1:20).— ὅôé ἐ ã ὼ ï ὐ ê å ἰ ì ὶ ὁ ÷ñéóôüò is the reading of the best MSS., à . A. B.C*., L. X., Orig., Chrys., Cyr., Lachm., Tisch. (VIII. ed.), Alf., instead of ïὐê åἰìß ἐãþ . The former reading emphasizes ἐãþ , I for my part, and implies that John knew another who was the Messiah, while the latter reading emphasizes the negation: It is not I who, etc.—P. S.]
Joh_1:22.—The ïõ ̇͂ í after åé ̇͂ ðïí here is significant. Not, as by Lachmann according to B. C., to be omitted. [Cod. Sin. has it.]
Joh_1:24.—Tischendorf, after several codd. (A.* B.* C.* L.), omits the article before ἀðåóôáëìÝíïé . As Origen supposed a second embassy, the omission may have arisen with him. [The Cod. Sinaiticus has a gap here, indicating the original presence of the article.—E. D. Y.]
Joh_1:26.—A. B. C. L. [Cod. Sin.] read ïὐäÝ both times, instead of ïὔôå . The latter is probably exegetically the more accurate particle.
Joh_1:27.—The words áὐôüò ἐóôéí and ὄò ἔìðñïóèÝí ìïõ ãÝãïíåí are wanting in B. and C. [Cod. Sin.] and in Origen. Bracketed by Lachmann, omitted by Tischendorf [and Alford]. The Johannean style is in favor of the first words; the connection with ὁ ὀðßóù ., etc., is in favor of the others. Cod. A., etc., and the similar expression in Joh_1:15, are in favor of both.
Joh_1:29.—The Recepta reads Âçèáâáñᾷ , after Origen. Authorities decisive against it. [Comp. the note of Alford in loc.—P. S.]
Joh_1:29.—Against the addition ὁ ̓ ÉùÜííçò are A. B. C., etc. Meyer: “Beginning of a church lesson.” [Cod. Sin., a gap.—E. D. Y.]
Joh_1:28.—[The E. V. follows the Vulgate: qui tollit. The Gr. verb áἴñåéí has the double meaning to take up (to bear the punishment of sin in order to expiate it, comp. Isaiah 53.: he bore our griefs and carried our sorrows), and to take away (= ἀöáéñåῖí ). Both may be combined (as is done by Olshausen) and expressed by the German verb hinwegtragen, to bear away, to take away by taking upon one’s self, or to remove the penalty of sin by expiation: See the Exeg. Notes. The present ὁ áἴñùí is used in prophetic vision of the act of atonement as a present and continuous fact.—P. S.]
Joh_1:31.—[Some authorities insert here and in Joh_1:33 the article ôῷ before ὕäáôé , “in the water (of Jordan) in which you see me baptize.” Alford brackets, Tischend. (ed. VIII.) omits, Meyer (p. 112) defends it.—P. S.]
Joh_1:32.—Most codd. read ὡò , not ὡóåß , which comes from Mat_3:16; Luk_3:22.
[So also Lücke, De Wette, Meyer, Wieseler, Ebrard, Luthardt, Godet, Alford, etc. Bengel infers from this passage that the preaching of the Baptist began not long before the baptism of Jesus; otherwise the embassy would have been sent earlier. Alford argues that it was absolutely necessary to suppose that John should have delivered this testimony often, and under varying circumstances, first in the form given by Luke: ἔ ñ ÷ å ô á é ὁ ἰó÷õñ . ìïõ ê . ô . ë ., and after it in this form, ïõ ̇͂ ôïò ç ̇͂ í ὂí åé ̇͂ ðïí , where his former testimony is distinctly referred to.—P. S.]
[Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine and other fathers distinguished two Elijahs, corresponding to the two advents of Christ, 1) a man of the spirit and power of Elijah, i.e., John the Baptist; 2) Elijah the Tishbite, who shall precede as a herald the second or judicial coming of Christ. ‘This view is adopted by Ryle, who thinks that John could not well have answered in the negative, if there is no literal fulfilment of Malachi’s prophecy in prospect. Trench (Studies in the Gospels, p. 214) leaves the question undecided.—P. S.]
[Bengel: Omnia a se amolitur, ut Christum confiteatur et ad Christum redigat quxrentes. “He turns all from himself, that he may confess Christ and bring the inquirers to Christ.” This expresses the true character and mission of the Baptist. Comp. Joh_3:30.—P. S.]
[The absence of a name is urged in favor of this interpretation.—P. S.]
[Grotius, Kuinoel, Olsh. refer ὁ ðñïöÞôçò to Jeremiah.—P. S.]
[Meyer (p. 108), on the contrary, takes áἴñåéí here in the sense to take away, to abolish, but admits that this idea presupposes the idea of bearing (Das Hinwegnehmen der Sünde von Seite des Lammes setzt das Aufsichnehmen derselben voraus). Dr. Lange’s view is more correct. In Isaiah 53., to which also Meyer refers the passage, the idea of expiatory bearing ( ðָùָׂ à , LXX.: öÝñåé , ἀíÞíåãêå , ἀíïßóåé ) prevails. By assuming and bearing our sin, Christ has abolished it.