Jn 1:29 The Baptist bore witness before the envoys of the Sanhedrin. Another testimony is then added, which he gave to all who happened to be present. Verse 29: altera die, that is, “on the following day,” the day after the deputation, John sees Jesus coming toward him—βλέπει (“he sees”), which, as Maldonatus notes, is more emphatic (ἐμφατικώτερον), because it sets the scene more vividly before the eyes. Fourteen Vulgate manuscripts and three ancient versions read videt (“he sees”).
Rupert rightly observes that the Baptist, who with such loud proclamation had obeyed the call to be herald of the truth, now receives the reward of faith and devotion: he sees Jesus coming to him. “For if he rejoiced as an infant with joy (Luke 1:54) while still small in the womb, how greatly did he rejoice with exultation as a young man preaching, when the same King Christ stood before him to be addressed? And he who deserved to think such worthy thoughts of Him above, while seeing Him inwardly with the mind and seeking Him outwardly with the eyes—how much more, when he found Him, ought he and could he cry out something worthy of Him!” (Rupert).
Cajetan rightly notes the difference in narrative time between the Synoptics and John. The former pass quickly over the period preceding John the Baptist’s imprisonment and hasten on to what follows; John, however, dwells especially on that period. He omits the departure into the desert (since it is narrated by the others), but recounts what took place after the descent from the mountain. For the Synoptics, after narrating Christ’s temptations, immediately add His return to Galilee after John had been handed over (Matthew 4:19; Mark 1:15; Luke 4:44), a return that John mentions only later (hence Jn 3:24: “for John had not yet been imprisoned”).
Jesus came to John in order to repeat and confirm the testimony and to bear witness before the Jews that He Himself was the Christ, pointing Him out with the finger (Lapide). Certainly also so as to fill the forerunner with joy and consolation. Therefore the Baptist, seeing Jesus approaching him, says: Ecce agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccatum mundi—“Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sin of the world.”
The interjection ἴδε (“behold”) is commonly used even when one is speaking to many, like en or ecce (Matthew 26:65; Mark 16:6; John 1:47; Jn 19:5, 14). Here it is all the more fitting, “because many had long been seeking Him on the basis of what had already been said; therefore he shows Him present and says: behold, pointing Him out as the very one who had long been sought” (Cajetan).
Previously he had announced one stronger than himself, who would baptize in the Holy Spirit, that is, who would infuse heavenly grace (Matthew 3:11). Now, however, he designates the reason why and the manner in which He offers the grace of the Spirit to all: by His own oblation and sacrifice He removes sin, appeases God, and opens the heavenly treasures to all. For He is the Lamb of God.
Most commentators derive the title from Isaiah 53 (Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Euthymius, Theodoret, Maldonatus, Baronius, Lapide, and others). Some also add Jeremiah 11:19 (Origen) and the daily sacrifice offered morning and evening (Origen, Thomas). He is therefore declared to be that Lamb, that sacrificial victim whom God has sent and provided for the expiation of the people, promised both in prophecy and in sacrificial ritual—hence, in the truest sense, the Lamb of God.
As the Apostle says of the old rite: “almost everything is purified with blood according to the law, and without the shedding of blood there is no remission” (Hebrews 9:22), so the notion of the removal of sin and the notion of sacrifice were bound together throughout the entire ceremonial institution. Moreover, in Isaiah 53 the Messiah is described as offering His life as a sacrifice for sin, upon whom the Lord laid the iniquities of all, who would be led like a sheep to the slaughter and like a lamb would endure all in silence (Is 53:6–7, 10). Hence it was natural to proclaim the Messiah, on whom God laid the iniquities of us all, as a lamb—the victim whom God designated, sent, and chose for Himself as expiation for the world.
Some see in this title either the divine nature of Christ (Euthymius: θεῖος, “divine”; Thomas, Baronius, Maldonatus, Lapide), or the lamb offered by God, that is, according to His will, or the lamb who belongs to God and pertains to Him.
What follows immediately from the notion of sacrifice or victim is here added in such a way that not only the expiation of the people of Israel (as might be inferred from the Law), but the reconciliation of the whole world is asserted: ecce qui tollit peccatum mundi—“behold, he who takes away the sin of the world.” ὁ αἴρων (“the one who takes away”) means removing, bearing away. Origen explains it by reference to “He is the propitiation for our sins” and “He erased the handwriting and took it out of the way” (1 John 2:1–2; Colossians 2:14). Chrysostom: He washes away the sins of others. Theophylact explains the verb as ἀφανίζειν (“to annihilate”), Theodoret as καταλύειν (“to destroy”), Cyril: He is the victim for all, removing the sin of the world, overthrowing the destroyer of the world, dissolving the curse. Euthymius: ἀφαιρεῖν, καθαίρειν (“to remove, to cleanse”).
And rightly so, for even in the Septuagint αἴρειν is used in this sense (1 Samuel 15:25; 25:28), and likewise in 1 John 3:5. He is called ὁ αἴρων in the present participle to signify the abiding and intrinsic power of this action; for by such speech we express permanent and unfailing realities, as when we say “fire heats.” Thus it is an attribute that belongs to Him by nature and denotes His proper and unique office.
The use of the singular τὴν ἁμαρτίαν (“the sin”) does not diminish the meaning but rather intensifies it; the entire kind or totality of what is signified is expressed in the singular. Thus every kind of sin, everything that is sinful in the world, is signified as being removed by Him—the whole mass and source of sin. At the same time it indicates the insufficiency and inefficacy of the old sacrifices for removing sins: this is finally the Lamb who truly takes them away, thus designating Christ as the Redeemer of the world, as prefigured in the Law and foretold by the prophets.
Jn 1:30 And as though pointing with the finger at Christ approaching him, John recalls to the memory of all the prophecy and testimony he had already given before Jesus came to be baptized: “This is he of whom I said: after me comes a man who has been made before me, because he was prior to me” (v. 30). This testimony is likewise reported in Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16.
Few words are needed about the term vir (“man”). The word does not appear in the parallel passages. Some explain it of perfect age, others of a man endowed with every virtue. More probably it is a Hebraism, meaning “someone,” as if he had said: after me comes someone greater than I.
Jn 1:31 This testimony is of greater weight because it did not arise from conjecture or human knowledge, but from divine revelation and command (v. 31): “And I did not know him; but in order that he might be manifested to Israel (τῷ Ἰσραήλ, “to Israel”), therefore I came baptizing with water.” God thus willed that Jesus should receive baptism, as Jesus Himself said when John tried to prevent Him: “Allow it now; for thus it becomes us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). In this baptism He willed to manifest Him to Israel by the signs that occurred (Matthew 3:16–17; Mark 1:9–11; Luke 3:21–22). Hence it is clear that this passage presupposes what the Synoptics recount about Jesus’ baptism.
John’s mission, therefore, was to predict the coming of Jesus, to prepare souls by repentance, and by his ministry solemnly to manifest Him to the people.
Jn 1:32 But did John rightly identify this greater one as Jesus? The Evangelist answers by explaining the sign by which the Baptist was divinely instructed who this “one who was to come” was (v. 32): “John bore witness saying: I saw the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven, and it remained upon him.” Luke 3:22 adds: “the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon him.” Thus quasi columbam (“like a dove”) is explained as “in the form (εἴδει) of a dove.” Weiss wrongly claims that it merely means a luminous appearance descending gently like a dove; but then the point of comparison would not be expressed, nor is a dove’s flight so uniquely gentle that the mere mention of a dove would suffice.
Jn 1:33 He further explains the meaning of the sign (v. 33): “And I did not know him.” He knew that the Christ was to come, but he did not know Jesus by face, since he had lived in the desert all his life outside his father’s house (Luke 1:80; 3:2). As Samuel was sent to Bethlehem knowing that one of Jesse’s sons was to be anointed king, yet not knowing which one, so John came to the Jordan knowing that Christ had already come, but not knowing in person who Christ was.
This does not contradict Matthew 3:14. Since he knew Christ was to come to him, he awaited Him with great desire and sought Him with his eyes. Jesus bore such dignity and modesty that John could easily persuade himself that the one he desired was already present; add to this a special impulse of the Holy Spirit. As he once sensed Him hidden in the womb, so he now recognized Him present; but by the divinely given sign his persuasion was strengthened into absolute certainty, enabling him to give the most assured testimony.
“On whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, this is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit”—that is, who bestows the Holy Spirit, by whom spiritual regeneration is effected.
From this Chrysostom concludes: you see that the Holy Spirit came in order to reveal Christ and to render John’s testimony more credible, referring it back to God and the Holy Spirit. Cyril likewise says that the descent of the Spirit was given to him as a sign and indication. The descent was not to increase Christ’s grace—His soul possessed the fullness of grace from the beginning by virtue of the hypostatic union—but neither was it a mere external sign. As Christ’s soul is shown in the Gospels experiencing various affections, so here, in this solemn introduction and manifestation, it is fitting to believe that His soul was imbued with a singular and most sublime affection of charity toward God and humanity and that He embraced His mission with the greatest fervor. The Synoptics also note this special impulse of the Spirit after the baptism (Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:12; Luke 4:1).
Jn 1:34 Finally, the Baptist repeats his testimony, affirming again that he designated Jesus as the Messiah on the basis of the most certain revelation and knowledge (v. 34): “And I have seen (ἑώρακα) and have borne witness (μεμαρτύρηκα).” The perfect tense signifies a past act whose effect endures. He bore witness at once and still affirms his vision and testimony with full force. He testified to what he heard at that manifestation (cf. Matthew 3:17): “This is the Son of God”—certainly not by adoption, but by nature.
Whether those who heard fully understood this is another question. Among the Jews at that time “Son of God” could signify the Messiah, not explicitly true God. Yet the Baptist himself must be judged to have understood it in the true sense, given his own words (vv. 15, 23, 30), which proclaim Christ’s divinity so clearly that even his hearers could suspect it.
As Salmeron writes, John produced three testimonies describing Christ: because He is the Lamb of God, He can take away sins; because He baptizes in the Holy Spirit, He can bestow grace and gifts; and because He is the Son of God, He can grant us adoption as sons of God and the inheritance of the Kingdom of Heaven. CONTINUE.
Comments
Post a Comment