1:19-34 The witness of John the Baptist to Jesus
The Testimony of John the Baptist
19 And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” 20 He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.” 21 And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.” 22 So they said to him, “Who are you? We need to give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” 23 He said, “I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight7 the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.”
24 (Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.) 25 They asked him, “Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” 26 John answered them, “I baptize with water, but among you stands one you do not know, 27 even he who comes after me, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.” 28 These things took place in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” 32 And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”
The references to John the Baptist in the prologue are intended to lead into the historical record of John’s relation to Jesus. The subject is introduced by an enquiry from the Jews of Jerusalem. The term ‘the Jews’ occurs frequently in this gospel but not always in the same way. Sometimes it is used of the inhabitants of Judea as distinguished from Galilee; sometimes it refers to Jews as unbelievers in Jesus; most often it denotes the Jewish leaders in their opposition to Jesus. Here these leaders are represented by the priests and Levites. The main point of this passage is to distinguish the herald from the person announced. The writer records the questions about the identity of John the Baptist because this clearly has a bearing on the validity of his testimony. The question about Elijah is an allusion to Mal. 4:5. Some see here a correction of the synoptic tradition in which Jesus identified the expected Elijah with John the Baptist (cf. Mt. 11:14; 17:12). But John himself did not make this claim. The question about the Prophet refers back to Dt. 18:15-18, which was generally supposed to allude to an end–time figure. This general title does not appear to have been Messianic (cf. 7:40-41). John’s own claim was to be the voice referred to in Is. 40:3 (23). In the synoptics these words are applied to John the Baptist but are not claimed by him. He was content to be the voice which heralded the Christ.
In view of John the Baptist’s denials, the question of the reason for his baptisms naturally arose (24-28), and this gave him a further opportunity to distinguish between his own ministry and that of Christ. The form of the question suggests that the rite was being understood in the sense of an official sign of authority. John did not answer the question but pointed to Christ in a way which will be illustrated in the following passage. John’s water baptism is contrasted with Christ’s Spirit baptism in v 33, which shows the superiority of the latter. But here John’s humility in relation to Jesus is in sharp focus. The location of John’s baptism is carefully distinguished from another Bethany mentioned in 11:1.
Note that in v 29 the author introduces a sequence of six days, which may be compared with the conclusion of the ministry of Jesus, where another six days is recorded. John the Baptist’s first introduction of Jesus as the Lamb of God is startling. To the original hearers the idea of a lamb must at once have suggested the sacrificial lamb. The offering of the temple sacrifices was so familiar to Jewish minds that it would be difficult to think of the concept Lamb of God apart from this. But the real difficulty occurs in the transference of the lamb imagery to a person. It is doubtful whether the hearers would have connected the idea with Is. 53, but it is not impossible that John the Baptist himself may have done so. On the other hand, he may not have understood the further statement who takes away the sin of the world in a context of sacrifice, but in the context of judgment. There is no reason why Jesus should not have understood it in the sense of Ex. 29:38-46 and Is. 53:4-12, even if John the Baptist did not grasp its full [p. 1027] significance. Certainly, the evangelist would have understood the statement in a fuller sacrificial sense. There is some debate about the significance of the verb translated takes away. If we are to interpret this in the light of Is. 53, the idea of vicarious suffering is inescapable. It has been objected that the notion of bearing away sin cannot here be present because the Passover lamb was not sacrificed as a sin offering. Yet John’s statement need not be rigidly interpreted in Passover terms. As far as the author is concerned Jesus as the lamb forms an important key to his ministry, since in this gospel that ministry begins at this point. The baptism of Jesus,
which John does not record, had already taken place (cf. v 32). John the Baptist’s words convey something of the universal scope of Jesus’ ministry.
Some scholars have found difficulty in believing that John the Baptist spoke the words in v 29, particularly because at a later stage he expressed doubts about the Messiahship of Jesus. It is suggested that the view of Jesus as the Lamb of God is the opinion of the writer of the gospel which has been read back into the life of Jesus. But there is much in this gospel which points to the work of Christ on behalf of others. As to John the Baptist’s later hesitation over the identity of Jesus, there is no need to suppose that John’s grasp at this early stage was clear. The lamb imagery does not demand this.
V 30 is a repetition of v 15 and ties this section into the prologue and re–emphasizes the superiority of Jesus over the Baptist. When John said he did not know Jesus he must have meant that he did not know him as ‘the coming one’. In this gospel there is a distinction between the use of ‘Jews’ and the use of Israel, the latter never being used in an adverse sense. In the Greek the verb translated saw (32) carries the idea of a settled conviction. The reference to the descent of the Spirit on Jesus in this gospel differs from the account in the synoptics. Here John himself saw the bodily form of a dove, whereas in the synoptics it was Jesus who saw it. The dove may symbolize gentleness of character or be used as an emblem of flight to show the reality of the Spirit’s descent. The contrast between this and the visible display at Pentecost is striking (cf. Acts 2:2-3). Clearly, both descents were intended to be exceptional witnesses to the mission of Jesus. John received some special revelation (33) which enabled him to identify Jesus as the one who would baptise with the Holy Spirit. Spirit–baptism is vividly contrasted with water–baptism and is superior to it. We have another echo from the prologue in the statement that Jesus is the Son of God, and this also ties up with the purpose of the gospel stated in 20:31.
1:35-51 The calling of the first disciples
35 The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples, 36 and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” 37 The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. 38 Jesus turned and saw them following and said to them, “What are you seeking?” And they said to him, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?” 39 He said to them, “Come and you will see.” So they came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour.8 40 One of the two who heard John speak and followed Jesus9 was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. 41 He first found his own brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ). 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John. You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter10).
43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” 44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” 46 Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” 47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” 48 Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” 49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” 50 Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” 51 And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you,11 you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”
The repeated Lamb of God statement (35) is intended to imply that the two disciples who followed Jesus had caught something of the significance of the one to whom John had pointed. There is nothing in the narrative to suggest that John the Baptist expected any of his disciples to desert him; rather the implication is that he saw this as part of his own mission in heralding Jesus. The name of only one of the disciples is given, and the other may have been the author John. The idea of following in v 37 is no doubt neutral and only later became a fuller commitment to discipleship. Their response to the question of Jesus and their addressing him as Rabbi shows their serious intentions in following him. The title ‘Rabbi’ was one of respect and did not refer (as it came to do later) to one who had been trained in the rabbinical schools. It may be wondered why in v 39 the tenth hour is mentioned. If John was using the normal Jewish method of reckoning, the hour would have been late afternoon and a stay until the end of the day is implied.
The way Andrew is said to have found his brother Simon Peter as the first thing he did suggests that he had grasped at once the great significance of the encounter with Jesus. John gives two other flashes of insight into the character of Andrew in this gospel (cf. 6:8; 12:22). The term Messiah (40) is translated by John for the benefit of his non–Jewish readers. Both the Hebrew Messiah and the Greek Christ are derived from a root meaning ‘Anointed One’. Although in the OT the idea of anointing was mainly in the setting apart of kings, in the NT the concept is applied to Jesus in a widened sense to include the idea of an anointed prophet, priest and king. A contradiction has been supposed between this announcement and the synoptic records, which suggest that Jesus was not recognized as Messiah until Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi. But there is no need to suppose that here the disciples had anything but a very general idea of what Messiahship really meant. In v 42 there is a marked emphasis on personal relationships involving Andrew, Simon and Jesus. Again there is a difference between John and the synoptics in the time at which the name Peter was given to Simon. Here it is given at the beginning of the ministry, whereas in Mt. 16:18 it is confirmed after Peter’s confession. It is worth noting that Jesus here uses the future tense which would point to the Mt. 16:18 occasion. Both Peter and Cephas mean ‘rock’, suggesting that Jesus was thinking of the rocklike character which he proposed to make of Simon.
So far at least three disciples are said to have [p. 1028] followed Jesus. But John mentions two others before commencing his account of the ministry of Jesus in ch. 2. In the case of Philip Jesus took the initiative in telling him to follow. Philip is mentioned again several times in this gospel (6:5; 12:21; 14:8). He appears to have been a man with a practical frame of mind. Although Philip, Andrew and Peter are said to be from Bethsaida they had come to live in Capernaum (Mk. 1:21, 29). A further piece of personal witness which led another to Jesus is mentioned here when Philip contacted Nathanael. Since the theme of witness is so important in the gospel, the method by which Peter and Nathanael were brought to Jesus is significant
Personal testimony has always been one of the most fruitful means of leading people to become disciples of Jesus. There is a difference in the way Philip introduced Jesus compared with Andrew for he did not point to ‘the Messiah’, but to the one whom Moses and the prophets wrote about. It is the same thing. The reference to Jesus of Nazareth sparked off a sceptical remark by Nathanael (46). Evidently Nazareth had something of an unsavoury reputation, and the way it rejected Jesus (Lk. 4:14-30) is in line with that reputation.
The encounter between Jesus and Nathanael is most instructive. First, we note the high opinion that Jesus expressed of him (47). The thought of an Israelite in whom there is nothing false may have been prompted by the story of Jacob, who is clearly in mind in v 51. Secondly, we note his inquiring mind—How do you know me? There is here an element of surprise which suggests that Nathanael had not previously met Jesus. Thirdly, we note the foreknowledge of Jesus, which must have greatly impressed Nathanael. There is no certain way of knowing what Nathanael was doing under the fig–tree, but the main point here is the more than ordinary insight of Jesus, which was clearly recognized by Nathanael. His response was far–reaching. Not only did he recognize Jesus as Rabbi, but also as Son of God and King of Israel. Again, even at this early stage, there was an understanding of Jesus as Son of God, however rudimentary. John has brought out the initial references to the divine Sonship of Jesus in the prologue to the very core of the emerging ministry of Jesus. The greater things of v 50 are explained by v 51, which speaks of the development of spiritual vision. The idea of seeing angels ascending and descending on the Son of Man seems to be an echo from the story of Jacob (Gn. 28:12). The meaning of the statement is that heaven is now opened for continuous communication with people, the representative of whom is Christ himself under the title Son of Man. It is remarkable that this title is substituted for Nathanael’s Son of God, for this shows that the human aspect of Jesus is as important as the divine.
2:1-11 Revelation through a sign
In this gospel there are a number of signs, and the turning of water into wine is the first. Most of the signs mentioned by John lead into a discourse on a related theme. These signs are clearly an integral part of the structure of the gospel. As a result of the first, John specially mentions that the glory of Christ was seen, and this points the way for an understanding of the rest. It is worth noting that both this sign and the next (4:54) were performed in Cana in Galilee. This was about three days’ journey from where John was baptizing. The reference in v 1 to the third day is significant because in conjunction with the other references to days in ch. 1 it is possible to see the miracle at Cana as happening at the conclusion of a seven day period. John is perhaps thinking of the events in the first week of Jesus’ ministry.
In the discussion between Jesus and his mother (3-4) it must be remembered that Mary saw the running out of the wine supply as an acute embarrassment to the hosts, whereas Jesus concentrated on his main mission, indicated here by the word time (Gk. ‘hour’). The theme of Jesus’ ‘hour’ runs through the whole gospel, culminating in the passion story (cf. 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 17:1). The way in which Jesus spoke to his mother (softened somewhat in the NIV) may seem strange, but his intention clearly was to correct any misunderstanding that he might take orders from anyone other than the Father (cf. 5:30; 8:29). The connection between Mary’s remark and Jesus’ comment is probably to be found in the view that Jesus was looking beyond the present wedding to the coming Messianic feast. Jesus also distinguished between the human view of time and God’s. The words suggest an awareness of impending crisis and climax. It is intended that the readers should, at an early stage, get a glimpse of this, although they must wait until later to realize the full significance.
The description of the six stone jars in v 6 as used for ceremonial washing suggests that some symbolic meaning is intended. Some see the whole account as symbolic rather than factual to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity over Judaism, in which case the water represents the Torah and the wine the gospel. But it is better to see the incident as a domestic wedding theme with overtones of symbolic meaning. There may be some allusion to the fact that Jesus will provide lavishly in the Messianic feast, whereas he did not fail to meet the immediate needs of the bridegroom. The capacity of the jars was [p. 1029] more than 100 gallons (450 litres). It is not stated whether all the water was changed into wine, or only the water which had been drawn off for the feast. The master of the banquet may have been one of the guests who was appointed to act as master of ceremonies, but it would have been the responsibility of the bridegroom to provide the wine and food. This may explain why he did not know the source of the supply of wine (9). It was the usual custom to serve the best wine first. The text suggests that this custom was because some of the guests would have become somewhat inebriated and would not have recognized the inferior wine. But in this narrative the main point seems to be the superiority of the wine which Jesus provided, a precursor of his provision for the Messianic feast. The incident is brought to a close by stressing the fact that this was the first of the miraculous signs (11). Note that John uses the word signs, whereas the synoptic gospels prefer to speak of wonders and mighty works. A sign always points to some deeper truth beyond itself. The comment that through this sign Jesus revealed his glory suggests that the followers of Jesus saw more in the signs than the general onlookers, and Christians have not been slow to see the contrast between the insipid water of the old life and the richness of new life in Christ. It needed faith to discern the glory.
No comments:
Post a Comment