Jn 1:29. The Baptist here calls Jesus “the Lamb of God”, without doubt with reference to the prophetic passage Isaiah 53:7, where “the Servant of the Lord”, that is, the Messiah, is portrayed as a patiently suffering and dying lamb who reconciles the people through his vicarious death (cf. Acts 8:32). Such a well-known reference is already indicated by the article before ἀμνός (“lamb”): “Behold, the one who is called ‘the Lamb’ by the prophet!”
The interpretation adopted by many commentators, namely that this refers to the Passover lamb, is less probable, since the Passover lamb had no relation to the sins of the people or to their removal, and thus has nothing to do with αἴρειν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου (“to take away the sin of the world”). Rather, John calls him “the Lamb of God,” that is, the lamb consecrated to God and destined for God, thereby designating him as a sacrificial victim. This understanding of the genitive relationship follows from the entire line of thought in Isaiah 53 (cf. Revelation 5:6; 13:8).
By the addition ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου (“who takes away the sin of the world”), John then specifies him more precisely as a sin-offering (cf. אֲשָׁם ’āšām, “guilt offering,” Isaiah 53:10). Interpreters are not unanimous concerning the meaning of the verb αἴρειν here. Some understand the words as “who removes the sin of the world,” others as “who takes upon himself” or “bears” it. In the corresponding passage Isaiah 53:12, the verb נָשָׂא (nāśā’, “to bear”) is used, which indeed includes the notion of expiatory bearing; the Septuagint renders it by φέρειν (“to carry”).
However, since John here deliberately uses αἴρειν, not the Septuagintal equivalent, and since this verb, according to the consistent usage of the Septuagint (cf. 1 Samuel 15:25; 25:28) and also 1 John 3:5 (cf. 2:2), clearly means “to take away,” we must, with the Vulgate (qui tollit), understand it in that sense. Yet, in terms of the overall meaning, it makes no essential difference which nuance is preferred. In any case, the Baptist here designates Jesus as the suffering and dying Messiah who, through his passion and death, takes upon himself the sin of the world in a representative manner, bears it, and precisely thereby also removes it, abolishes it.
The present participle ὁ αἴρων (“the one who takes away”) rests on the fact that the Baptist prophetically places before his eyes the atoning act of the Lamb of God (Meyer). The singular τὴν ἁμαρτίαν (“the sin”) denotes the sins of humanity in their totality, as one unified whole. While Isaiah speaks only of the expiation of the sin of the people, the Baptist extends this idea in τοῦ κόσμου (“of the world”) to the entire human race. Objectively and in its intention, Christ has reconciled the whole world with God; subjectively, however, this reconciliation is realized only in those who enter into him believingly (cf. John 3:15ff.) and lovingly (cf. Romans 5:18).
Jn 1:30. Having just designated Jesus as the suffering and humbled Messiah, the Baptist now again, as above in verse 15, points to his exalted dignity: “This is he of whom I said: After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.” What John had earlier testified in general about the coming Messiah is now given its definite application to the concrete person standing before him, to Jesus himself. According to Meyer, ἐγώ (“I”) carries the emphasis of a certain prophetic self-awareness of confirmation.
Concerning ὀπίσω μου ἔρχεται (“comes after me”), see on verse 15. Maldonatus is wrong to claim that ἀνήρ (“man”) is used here, like ἄνθρωπος, in a Hebraizing sense meaning merely “someone” or “a certain one.” Rather, ἀνήρ in the mouth of the Baptist is a more reverent designation of the Messiah than ἄνθρωπος would have been (cf. Acts 17:31; Zechariah 6:12).
Jn 1:31-32. The Baptist now grounds the credibility of his testimony to the messiahship of Jesus by stating that, at the time when he bore that testimony concerning the Messiah, Jesus himself—as the historical person of the Messiah—was still unknown to him; certainty concerning this matter was mediated to him through a revelation given to him.
Some take κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν (“and I did not know him”) as referring back to ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἶδατε (“whom you do not know”) in verse 26, so that καί would mean “also”: “I also, like you.” It is better, however, with most interpreters, to understand κἀγώ as resuming and continuing the ἐγώ of verse 30 (cf. verse 34): “And I did not know him; but in order that he might be manifested to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.”
At first glance, οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν presents difficulties. If we recall that the mothers of both were related and on friendly terms, it is hard to assume a complete unfamiliarity of the Baptist with the person of Jesus. Moreover, would the Baptist not have learned from his parents that in Jesus the Anointed of the Lord had been born (cf. Luke 1:42ff.)? Would he not have heard what his father Zechariah prophesied at his birth about his vocation (cf. Luke 1:76ff.)? Finally, according to Matthew 3:13ff., the Baptist refuses to baptize Jesus, declaring that he himself needs to be baptized by Jesus—he therefore already knows Jesus and is aware of his high dignity.
These difficulties are best resolved if we understand ᾔδειν not of external acquaintance, but of inward recognition, or rather of full, unquestionable certainty that Jesus is the Messiah. This certainty did not arise for the Baptist until the sign given to him by the Spirit of God was fulfilled (cf. verse 33). John indeed knew of Jesus and already believed that he was the Messiah, and this belief was surely strengthened when he saw Jesus approaching to be baptized by him. But the certainty that enabled him publicly to proclaim the Messiah’s presence and to point him out to the people came only with the occurrence of the divinely appointed sign.
He continues: ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα φανερωθῇ (“but in order that he might be manifested”). The Baptist had received the promise that, during his baptizing, the Messiah would be unmistakably revealed to him. He therefore understands this revelation to himself, and through him to Israel, as the ultimate purpose of his baptismal ministry. This does not conflict with Matthew 3:11, where the call to repentance is given as the purpose of John’s baptism, since repentance served precisely to prepare hearts for the revelation and believing reception of the Messiah.
Verse 32. The fulfillment of this promise occurred at the baptism of Jesus: “And John bore witness and said: I have seen the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven, and it remained upon him.” John says “I have seen”, namely at the baptism of Jesus, as is clearly implied in verse 33 and explicitly evident from Matthew 3:16 and Luke 3:22.
The phrase ὡς περιστεράν (“like a dove”) does not belong to καταβαῖνον (“descending”) but to πνεῦμα (“Spirit”); it compares not the manner of the descent to the movement of a dove, but the form of the Spirit to the form of a dove. This is clear from Luke 3:22, where it is said that the Spirit descended ἐν σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡς περιστερά (“in bodily form, like a dove”). From this we also see that what is meant here is not merely a spiritual vision, but an external appearance.
On the dove as a symbol of the Holy Spirit, and on the significance of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus, see the comments on Matthew 3:13, 16.
John adds καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν (“and it remained upon him”), thereby distinguishing Jesus from the Old Testament prophets. Upon them the Holy Spirit came only from time to time; they were seized by the Spirit only temporarily. Upon Jesus, however, the Spirit remained; as man, he was continually full of the Holy Spirit. The importance of this point has prompted the transition from the participle καταβαῖνον (“descending”) to the finite verb ἔμεινεν (“it remained”) (cf. Ephesians 1:20; 2 Corinthians 6:9; Hebrews 8:10).
Concerning ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν, where one might expect ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ after ἔμεινεν, see Winer, pp. 363, 369. The idea is: “it remained directed toward him.” These words, moreover, point back to Isaiah 11:2, where it is said of the Messiah: “And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom,” and so forth.
Jn 1:33–34. Once again the Baptist emphasizes his former uncertainty with regard to the person of Jesus, but now adds how this uncertainty was completely resolved through a divine revelation previously granted to him: “And I did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me: ‘He upon whom you shall see the Spirit descend and remain upon him, this is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’”
The expression ὁ πέμψας με (“the one who sent me”) is to be compared with Luke 3:2: ἐγένετο ῥῆμα θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἰωάννην ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ (“the word of God came upon John in the wilderness”). The phrase ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν (“that one said to me”) stands in emphatic contrast to κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν (“and I did not know him”). Moreover, this εἶπεν (“said”) is best understood as referring to an inward divine address rather than to an external audible voice.
The words “upon whom you shall see” refer, namely, to the moment when John would be baptizing him with water, as is evident from the preceding phrase ὁ πέμψας με βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι (“he who sent me to baptize with water”). In this way God granted John a σημεῖον (“sign”), upon the fulfillment of which he would attain full certainty concerning the person of Jesus.
The expression βαπτίζειν ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (“to baptize in the Holy Spirit”) as a designation of the abundant, indeed overflowing, communication of the Holy Spirit arises from its contrast with baptism in water. Its foundation lies in those Old Testament passages that speak of the outpouring of the Spirit in the messianic age (Joel 3:1; Isaiah 44:3). For further discussion, one may compare Matthew 3:11.
This sign, then, and its actual fulfillment, the Baptist wishes to have regarded as the reliable foundation of his testimony concerning Jesus. Hence, in verse 34, the emphatic concluding statement: “And I have seen”—namely, what the divine address of verse 33 had promised—“and I have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”
The κἀγώ (“and I”), corresponding to the two earlier κἀγώ in verses 31 and 33, carries something of a triumphant tone. The perfect tense μεμαρτύρηκα (“I have borne witness”) is understood by some as presenting the testimony as complete and definitive—“I have testified once and for all.” Others relate it to the moment of seeing, with which the act of witnessing began, insofar as the Baptist was inwardly prompted and enabled to testify at that very instant.
In the Baptist’s declaration, “This is the Son of God,” one can clearly hear an echo of the heavenly voice in Matthew 3:17: οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα (“This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”). Yet the expression ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (“the Son of God”) in the mouth of the Baptist is not simply equivalent to ὁ Χριστός (“the Christ”). Rather, he intends thereby to indicate the higher, divine nature of Jesus, to which he had already alluded through the words ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν (“because he was before me”) in verse 15.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment