Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 1:15

John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

15. bare witness ] Better, bears witness. At the end of a long life this testimony of the Baptist abides still fresh in the heart of the aged Apostle. Three times in 20 verses (15, 27, 30) he records the cry which was such an epoch in his own life. The testimony remains as a memory for him, a truth for all.

and cried ] Better, and cries. The word indicates strong emotion, characteristic of a prophet. Comp. Joh 7:28; Joh 7:37, Joh 12:44; Isa 40:3.

of whom I spake ] As if his first utterance under the influence of the Spirit had been scarcely intelligible to himself.

He that cometh after, &c.] The exact meaning seems to be ‘He who is coming after me (in His ministry as in His birth) has become superior to me, for He was in existence from all eternity before me.’ Christ’s pre-existence in eternity a great deal more than cancelled John’s pre-existence in the world; and as soon as He appeared as a teacher He at once eclipsed His forerunner. But this is not quite certain. The words translated ‘is preferred before me,’ or ‘is become superior to me,’ literally mean ‘has come to be before me;’ and this may refer to time and not to dignity. But the perfect tense ‘has come to be, has become’ points to dignity rather than time. Moreover if ‘has become before me’ refers to time, this is almost tautology with ‘for He was before me,’ which must refer to time.

he was before me ] The Greek is peculiar, being the superlative instead of the comparative; not simply ‘ prior to me,’ but ‘ first of me.’ Perhaps it means ‘before me and first of all.’

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

John bare witness of him – The evangelist now returns to the testimony of John the Baptist. He had stated that the Word became incarnate, and he now appeals to the testimony of John to show that, thus incarnate, he was the Messiah.

He that cometh after me – He of whom I am the forerunner, or whose way I am come to prepare. See the notes at Mat 3:3.

Is preferred before me – Is superior to me. Most critics have supposed that the words translated is preferred relate to time, and not to dignity; meaning that though he came after him publicly, being six months younger than John, as well as entering on his work after John, yet that he had existed long before him. Most, however, have understood it more correctly, as our translators seem to have done, as meaning, He was worthy of more honor than I am.

He was before me – This can refer to nothing but his pre-existence, and can be explained only on the supposition that he existed before John, or, as the evangelist had before shown, from the beginning. He came after John in his public ministry and in his human nature, but in his divine nature he had existed long before John had a being – from eternity. We may learn here that it is one mark of the true spirit of a minister of Christ to desire and feel that Christ is always to be preferred to ourselves. We should keep ourselves out of view. The great object is to hold up the Saviour; and however much ministers may be honored or blessed, yet they should lay all at the feet of Jesus, and direct all men to him as the undivided object of affection and honor. It is the business of every Christian, as well as of every Christian minister, to be a witness for Christ, and to endeavor to convince the world that he is worthy of confidence and love.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Joh 1:15-18

John bare witness of Him

The pre-eminence of Christ

I.

CHRISTS SUPERIORITY TO JOHN THE BAPTIST.

1. John refers to and repeats previous testimonies, applying them to Him whom the congregation had just seen depart. The testimony was pointed, warm, confident, bold.

2. The substance and form of the testimony that, though Jesus was after John as to His birth and ministry, He was before him as to the dignity of His person, His mediatorial office, and above all His Deity.

II. CHRISTS SUPERIORITY TO ALL BELIEVERS.

1. All the fulness demanded for their wants, the entire supply for their need, is treasured up in Him.

(1) This might be asserted of the Word.

(2) But it is here asserted of Him as made flesh.

2. What has the believer that he has not received from Christ? By nature he is empty.

3. How exalting to Christ the truth that all are and always have been, and always will be, dependent on Him.

4. We derive from Christ, not through merit, grace after grace, and grace corresponding in nature to that poured on Christ.

III. CHRISTS SUPERIORITY TO MOSES.

1. Moses held a high place–the Law was given by him.

2. Nevertheless, no comparison could be made of Moses with Christ. He fulfilled his ministry and passed away, but Christ abides as the eternal administrator of grace and truth.

(1) The Law gives knowledge of sin and leaves us: grace and truth come with salvation from sin.

(2) The Law was the shadow of good things to come: the grace and truth of Christ were those good things.

IV. CHRISTS SUPERIORITY TO ALL CREATED INTELLIGENCES.

1. God is invisible and incomprehensible to all except His Son Jesus Christ.

2. Many are sons of God, Christ alone is the only-begotten of the Father.

3. Christ has declared the Father as no creature has done, revealing His nature, perfections, counsels, by His teaching, example, and secret influence on the minds of His people.

4. The eternal life of the best of His creatures consist in the knowledge of Him. (A. Beith, D. D.)

Christ pre-eminent

I. IT IS CHRIST ALONE WHO SUPPLIES THE SPIRITUAL WANTS OF ALL BELIEVERS (Joh 1:16).

1. The Spirit of Life is His special gift to the Church, and conveys from Him, as from a great root, sap and vigour to all the believing branches.

2. He is rich in mercy, wisdom, righteousness, holiness.

3. Out of His fulness believers in every age have been supplied.

4. Every saint in glory will acknowledge that he is Christs debtor for all he is.

II. THE VAST SUPERIORITY OF CHRIST TO MOSES AND THE GOSPEL TO THE LAW (Joh 1:17).

1. Moses was employed as a servant to convey the moral and ceremonial law which could not justify.

2. Christ as a Son came with the keys of Gods treasury of grace and truth Heb 3:6).

(1) Grace bringing salvation through faith.

(2) Truth fulfilling in His own Person the types of the Old

Testament.

III. IT IS CHRIST ALONE WHO HAS REVEALED THE FATHER TO MAN (verse 18).

1. No man could see God and live.

2. Yet all that man is capable of knowing of God the Father is revealed to us by God the Son. In His words, deeds, life, and death we see the wisdom, love, and holiness of God.

IV. How GREAT THE HONOUR OF THE BAPTIST AND CHRISTIAN MINISTERS in heralding such a Being. (Bp. Ryle.)

Face to face with Jesus Christ

How far ahead John was of the apostles in his conception and reception of the Saviour. Throughout the Baptist was not only a seer of the light but was drenched by the light.

I. JOHNS EXPERIENCE AND TESTIMONY. Verse 15 is information that the Apostle evidently thought very valuable. Having affirmed the Incarnation he recalls the testimony of the Baptist to that Incarnation. In this testimony lay the power and grace of the Forerunner. His was no outside knowledge or second-hand information, but experience, direct and personal. So now the man of permanent power is the man who speaks, or teaches, or works out of personal and spiritual experience. Learning, culture, travel, profoundest and most masterly thinking are well in their several places, because sanctifiable; but sanctity based on experience of the witness of the Spirit in us and to us individually is the grand thing.

II. JOHNS FULL-VOICED, ARTICULATE UTTERANCE OF THAT EXPERIENCE. Combine the two, beareth and crieth, and you have the perfection of Christ-like witness. Sometimes in law-courts witnesses have again and again to be instructed to speak out or up. There is self-evident reserve, hesitancy, a wish to say as little as possible. But John had no reserves, concealments, trickeries, and so cried out. Fitting it should have been so. Your private letter or personal explanation may be quiet and unobtrusive; but if your stand is in the public market, and the proclamation is a royal one, security must be taken that all around hear and know. If our heart be in our utterance the voice will answer to the heart. The testimony must not be chirped or whined, or spoken in falsetto. An unnatural twang will spoil the best speaking, albeit roaring, violence, physical sensationalism must not be confounded with crying.

III. THE WELL-BASED AND SELF-ABNEGATING CHARACTER OF JOHNS TESTIMONY. It was the experience of no mere mood or frame, but the granitic conviction and enunciation that he was only the runner before another.

1. His aim was to keep men from leaning on himself.

2. He disclaimed any intention of founding a sect or organizing a Church. He called himself a Voice, not a foundation.

3. His great purpose was to lead men to Christ. From this he never swerved. Johns conduct in drawing attention away from self to Christ should be imitated by every worker for Christ. Explanation, system-making, to say nothing of self-proclamation, is often sheer waste of that strength which can only be profitably utilized in sending men straight to Christ.

IV. JOHNS UNEXAGGERATED, almost charily worded, RECOGNITION OF CHRISTS DIVINITY. There was no gospel for him as there is none for us if Christ were not human. He was a Man, but a Man who was co-eternal with the Father. But the Baptists economy of words in proclaiming that fact is noticeable. He was before me. Simple, ordinary-looking, superficially unremarkable, but they hold in them an absolute statement of the pre-existence and Divinity of the Man Christ Jesus.

V. THE SIMPLICITY AND DIRECTNESS OF JOHNS WITNESS TO THE PERSON AND WORK OF CHRIST. This is He. To-day the message of the servant of Christ in relation to every problem of life and destiny must be, this is He. There lies the spell, the mission, the divinest success. Not His gospel even, but Himself. Not about Him, but to Him. Not the Bible or the Church, but Himself. (A. B. Grosart, D. D.)

The effectiveness of the Baptists ministry

He who follows me preceded me. Here, then, is an apparent contradiction, intended to excite attention and stimulate mental activity. The enigmatical form must have also contributed to impress this important declaration on the memory of the hearers. (F. Godet, D. D.)

Public attention drawn to Christ

The coming forth of the Incarnate Word among men was not in secrecy and silence, as a king might go forth incognito among his subjects; but public attention was directed to Him. This was done most efficiently by John. (J. Culross, D. D.)

Johns self-effacement

Not only is the moon changeable, waving and waning, and its shape and light declining as it grows older, and itself approaches nearer and nearer to the sun; but so soon as the sun arises, though the moon should be yet in its full size and roundness, its light immediately fades from view, and itself becomes as if it no longer existed, for the superior glory of that incomprehensible luminary. And so both John the Baptist and the Jewish form of worship faded and shrunk, and became as non-existent, after they had performed their parts and offices as witnesses and schoolmasters to the great and glorious appearing of the Son of God Himself, the Sun of righteousness, the Word made flesh, the Godhead incarnate, the light and life of men and all creation, embodied in shape, and planted in place, and made visible: though too bright and dazzling to be comprehended, except by those who had opened and exercised their eyes to see His witnesses in the hours of darkness, when others were immersed in sleep, and so were not forced to shut them close in the daytime, in the blindness of unbelief. (S. A. Bosanquet.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 15. Of him] The glorious personage before mentioned: John the Baptist, whose history was well known to the persons to whom this Gospel came in the beginning, bare witness; and he cried, – being deeply convinced of the importance and truth of the subject, he delivered his testimony with the utmost zeal and earnestness, – saying, This is he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me – for I am no other than the voice of the crier in the wilderness, Isa 40:3, the forerunner of the Messiah.

Was before me.] Speaking by the prophets, and warning your fathers to repent and return to God, as I now warn you; for he was before me-he was from eternity, and from him I have derived both my being and my ministry.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

John bare witness of him, and cried, saying: John was not he, but only a witness to him; and he continueth to bear witness (the verb is in the present tense); nor did he give an obscure or cold testimony, but an open, and plain, and fervent testimony, according to the prophecies, his testimony was the voice of one crying in the wilderness.

This was he of whom I spake; he first testified that Christ was he of whom he had before spoken; possibly when he was preaching in the wilderness, and Christ came to him to be baptized of him, Mat 3:11,14.

He that cometh after me is preferred before me; he that cometh after me, in order of time, or in the ministerial office and employment, or, as if he were my disciple, Joh 8:12, is become, or is made, before me.

For he was before me, both in the eternal destination, and in respect of his Divine nature; as also in dignity and eminency, considered as a prophet, i.e. one that revealeth my Fathers will. This John said before, though not in terms, yet in effect, when he said, Mat 3:11, He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear, & c. So Mar 1:7; Luk 3:16. This is the first thing which is here mentioned, as Johns testimony concerning Christ, respecting the excellency of his person.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

15. after mein officialmanifestation.

before mein rankand dignity.

for he was before meinexistence; “His goings forth being from of old, fromeverlasting” (Mic 5:2).(Anything lower than this His words cannot mean); that is, “MySuccessor is my Superior, for He was my Predecessor.” Thisenigmatic play upon the different senses of the words “before”and “after” was doubtless employed by the Baptist to arrestattention, and rivet the thought; and the Evangelist introduces itjust to clinch his own statements.

Joh1:16-18. SAME SUBJECTCONTINUED.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

John bare witness of him,…. Which was his office and business, for which purpose he was sent, Joh 1:6

and cried; this agrees with his work and office, according to the prophecy of him in Isa 40:3 and with the time of his ministry, the year of jubilee; and with the nature of his ministry, which was clear, open, and public; and performed with vigour, and in a powerful manner, with much assurance and certainty, with boldness and intrepidity, and with great zeal and fervency, and in an evangelical way; for it was such a cry as debased the creature, and exalted Christ:

this was he, of whom I spake; when he first entered upon his ministry and baptism, before he saw Christ, or baptized him; see Mt 3:11.

he that cometh after me; for Christ came into the world after John; he was born six months after him; he came after him to be baptized by him, and attended on his ministry; and came later into the public ministry than he did;

is preferred before me; by God, the Father, in setting him up as Mediator; constituting him the head of the church; causing a fulness of grace to dwell in him; appointing him the Saviour of his people; and ordaining him judge of quick and dead. And by the prophets, who spake much of him, and sparingly of John; and of him as the Messiah and Saviour, and of John only as his harbinger: and by John himself, who represents him as coming from above, and as above all; and himself as of the earth, earthly: and by all Gospel ministers, and every true believer; and good reason there is for it:

for he was before me; which cannot be meant of honour and dignity; for this is expressed before; and it would be proving one thing by the same: nor of his birth, as man; for John in that sense was before him, being born before him; besides, being born before another, is no proof of superior worth; others were born before John, whom he yet excelled: but of his eternal existence, as the word, and Son of God, who was before John, or any of the prophets; before Abraham, and Noah, and Adam, or any creature whatever: the Arabic and Persic versions read, “for he was more ancient than me”; being from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

John’s Testimony to Christ.

      15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.   16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.   17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.   18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

      In these verses,

      I. The evangelist begins again to give us John Baptist’s testimony concerning Christ, v. 15. He had said (v. 8) that he came for a witness; now here he tells us that he did accordingly bear witness. Here, Observe,

      1. How he expressed his testimony: He cried, according to the prediction that he should be the voice of one crying. The Old-Testament prophets cried aloud, to show people their sins; this New-Testament prophet cried aloud, to show people their Saviour. This intimates, (1.) That it was an open public testimony, proclaimed, that all manner of persons might take notice of it, for all are concerned in it. False teachers entice secretly, but wisdom publishes her dictates in the chief places of concourse. (2.) That he was free and hearty in bearing this testimony. He cried as one that was both well assured of the truth to which he witnessed and well affected to it. He that had leaped in his mother’s womb for joy of Christ’s approach, when newly conceived, does now with a like exultation of spirit welcome his public appearance.

      2. What his testimony was. He appeals to what he had said at the beginning of his ministry, when he had directed them to expect one that should come after him, whose forerunner he was, and never intended any other than to lead them to him, and to prepare his way. This he had given them notice of from the first. Note, It is very comfortable to a minister to have the testimony of his conscience for him that he set out in his ministry with honest principles and sincere intentions, with a single eye to the glory and honour of Christ. Now what he had then said he applies to this Jesus whom he had lately baptized, and who was so remarkably owned from heaven: This was he of whom I spoke. John did not tell them that there would shortly appear such a one among them, and then leave them to find him out; but in this he went beyond all the Old-Testament prophets that he particularly specified the person: “This was he, the very man I told you of, and to him all I said is to be accommodated.” Now what was it he said?

      (1.) He had given the preference to this Jesus: He that comes after me, in the time of his birth and public appearance, is preferred before me; he that succeeds me in preaching and making disciples is a more excellent person, upon all accounts; as the prince or peer that comes after is preferred before the harbinger or gentleman-usher that makes way for him. Note, Jesus Christ, who was to be called the Son of the Highest (Luke i. 32), was preferred before John Baptist, who was to be called only the prophet of the Highest, Luke i. 76. John was a minister of the New Testament, but Christ was the Mediator of the New Testament. And observe, though John was a great man, and had a great name and interest, yet he was forward to give the preference to him to whom it belonged. Note, All the ministers of Christ must prefer him and his interest before themselves and their own interests; they will make an ill account that seek their own things, not the things of Christ, Phil. ii. 21. He comes after me, and yet is preferred before me. Note, God dispenses his gifts according to his good pleasure, and many times crosses hands, as Jacob did, preferring the younger before the elder. Paul far outstripped those that were in Christ before him.

      (2.) He here gives a good reason for it: For he was before me, protos mou en—He was my first, or first to me; he was my first Cause, my original. The First is one of God’s names, Isa. xliv. 6. He is before me, is my first, [1.] In respect of seniority: he was before me, for he was before Abraham, ch. viii. 58. Nay, he was before all things, Col. i. 17. I am but of yesterday, he from eternity. It was but in those days that John Baptist came (Matt. iii. 1), but the goings forth of our Lord Jesus were of old, from everlasting, Mic. v. 2. This proves two natures in Christ. Christ, as man, came after John as to his public appearance; Christ, as God, was before him; and how could he otherwise be before him but by an eternal existence? [2.] In respect of supremacy; for he was my prince; so some princes are called the first; proton, “It is he for whose sake and service I am sent: he is my Master, I am his minister and messenger.”

      II. He presently returns again to speak of Jesus Christ, and cannot go on with John Baptist’s testimony till v. 19. The 16th verse has a manifest connection with v. 14, where the incarnate Word was said to be full of grace and truth. Now here he makes this the matter, not only of our adoration, but of our thankfulness, because from that fulness of his we all have received. He received gifts for men (Ps. lxviii. 18), that he might give gifts to men, Eph. iv. 8. He was filled, that he might fill all in all (Eph. i. 23), might fill our treasures, Prov. viii. 21. He has a fountain of fulness overflowing: We all have received. All we apostles; so some. We have received the favour of this apostleship, that is grace; and a fitness for it, that is truth. Or, rather, All we believers; as many as received him (v. 16), received from him. Note, All true believers receive from Christ’s fulness; the best and greatest saints cannot live without him, the meanest and weakest may live by him. This excludes proud boasting, that we have nothing but we have received it; and silences perplexing fears, that we want nothing but we may receive it. Let us see what it is that we have received.

      1. We have received grace for grace. Our receivings by Christ are all summed up in this one word, grace; we have received kai charin—even grace, so great a gift, so rich, so invaluable; we have received no less than grace; this is a gift to be spoken of with an emphasis. It is repeated, grace for grace; for to every stone in this building, as well as to the top-stone, we must cry, Grace, grace. Observe,

      (1.) The blessing received. It is grace; the good will of God towards us, and the good work of God in us. God’s good will works the good work, and then the good work qualifies us for further tokens of his good will. As the cistern receives water from the fulness of the fountain, the branches sap from the fulness of the root, and the air light from the fulness of the sun, so we receive grace from the fulness of Christ.

      (2.) The manner of its reception: Grace for grace—charin anti charitos. The phrase is singular, and interpreters put different senses upon it, each of which will be of use to illustrate the unsearchable riches of the grace of Christ. Grace for grace bespeaks, [1.] The freeness of this grace. It is grace for grace’ sake; so Grotius. We receive grace, not for our sakes (be it known to us), but even so, Father, because it seemed good in thy sight. It is a gift according to grace, Rom. xii. 6. It is grace to us for the sake of grace to Jesus Christ. God was well pleased in him, and is therefore well pleased with us in him, Eph. i. 6. [2.] The fulness of this grace. Grace for grace is abundance of grace, grace upon grace (so Camero), one grace heaped upon another; as skin for skin is skin after skin, even all that a man has, Job ii. 4. It is a blessing poured out, that there shall not be room to receive it, plenteous redemption: one grace a pledge of more grace. Joseph-He will add. It is such a fulness as is called the fulness of God which we are filled with. We are not straitened in the grace of Christ, if we be not straitened in our own bosoms. [3.] The serviceableness of this grace. Grace for grace is grace for the promoting and advancing of grace. Grace to be exercised by ourselves; gracious habits for gracious acts. Grace to be ministered to others; gracious vouchsafements for gracious performances: grace is a talent to be traded with. The apostles received grace (Rom 1:5; Eph 3:8), that they might communicate it, 1 Pet. iv. 10. [4.] The substitution of New-Testament grace in the room and stead of Old-Testament grace: so Beza. And this sense is confirmed by what follows (v. 17); for the Old Testament had grace in type, the New Testament has grace in truth. There was a grace under the Old Testament, the gospel was preached then (Gal. iii. 8); but that grace is superseded, and we have gospel grace instead of it, a glory which excelleth, 2 Cor. iii. 10. Discoveries of grace are now more clear, distributions of grace far more plentiful; this is grace instead of grace. [5.] It bespeaks the augmentation and continuance of grace. Grace for grace is one grace to improve, confirm, and perfect another grace. We are changed into the divine image, from glory to glory, from one degree of glorious grace to another, 2 Cor. iii. 18. Those that have true grace have that for more grace, Jam. iv. 6. When God gives grace he saith, Take this in part; for he who hath promised will perform. [6.] It bespeaks the agreeableness and conformity of grace in the saints to the grace that is in Jesus Christ; so Mr. Clark. Grace for grace is grace in us answering to grace in him, as the impression upon the wax answers the seal line for line. The grace we receive from Christ changes us into the same image (2 Cor. iii. 18), the image of the Son (Rom. viii. 29), the image of the heavenly, 1 Cor. xv. 49.

      2. We have received grace and truth, v. 17. He had said (v. 14) that Christ was full of grace and truth; now here he says that by him grace and truth came to us. From Christ we receive grace; this is a string he delights to harp upon, he cannot go off from it. Two things he further observes in this verse concerning this grace:– (1.) Its preference above the law of Moses: The law was given by Moses, and it was a glorious discovery, both of God’s will concerning man and his good will to man; but the gospel of Christ is a much clearer discovery both of duty and happiness. That which was given by Moses was purely terrifying and threatening, and bound with penalties, a law which could not give life, which was given with abundance of terror (Heb. xii. 18); but that which is given by Jesus Christ is of another nature; it has all the beneficial uses of the law, but not the terror, for it is grace: grace teaching (Tit. ii. 11), grace reigning, Rom. v. 21. It is a law, but a remedial law. The endearments of love are the genius of the gospel, not the affrightments of law and the curse. (2.) Its connection with truth: grace and truth. In the gospel we have the discovery of the greatest truths to be embraced by the understanding, as well as of the richest grace to be embraced by the will and affections. It is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation; that is, it is grace and truth. The offers of grace are sincere, and what we may venture our souls upon; they are made in earnest, for it is grace and truth. It is grace and truth with reference to the law that was given by Moses. For it is, [1.] The performance of all the Old-Testament promises. In the Old Testament we often find mercy and truth put together, that is, mercy according to promise; so here grace and truth denote grace according to promise. See Luk 1:72; 1Ki 8:56. [2.] It is the substance of all the Old-Testament types and shadows. Something of grace there was both in the ordinances that were instituted for Israel and the providences that occurred concerning Israel; but they were only shadows of good things to come, even of the grace that is to be brought to us by the revelation of Jesus Christ. He is the true paschal lamb, the true scape-goat, the true manna. They had grace in the picture; we have grace in the person, that is, grace and truth. Grace and truth came, egeneto—was made; the same word that was used (v. 3) concerning Christ’s making all things. The law was only made known by Moses, but the being of this grace and truth, as well as the discovery of them, is owing to Jesus Christ; this was made by him, as the world at first was; and by him this grace and truth do consist.

      3. Another thing we receive from Christ is a clear revelation of God to us (v. 18): He hath declared God to us, whom no man hath seen at any time. This was the grace and truth which came by Christ, the knowledge of God and an acquaintance with him. Observe,

      (1.) The insufficiency of all other discoveries: No man hath seen God at any time. This intimates, [1.] That the nature of God being spiritual, he is invisible to bodily eyes, he is a being whom no man hath seen, nor can see, 1 Tim. vi. 16. We have therefore need to live by faith, by which we see him that is invisible, Heb. xi. 27. [2.] That the revelation which God made of himself in the Old Testament was very short and imperfect, in comparison with that which he has made by Christ: No man hath seen God at any time; that is, what was seen and known of God before the incarnation of Christ was nothing to that which is now seen and known; life and immortality are now brought to a much clearer light than they were then. [3.] That none of the Old-Testament prophets were so well qualified to make known the mind and will of God to the children of men as our Lord Jesus was, for none of them had seen God at any time. Moses beheld the similitude of the Lord (Num. xii. 8), but was told that he could not see his face, Exod. xxxiii. 20. But this recommends Christ’s holy religion to us that it was founded by one that had seen God, and knew more of his mind than any one else ever did.

      (2.) The all-sufficiency of the gospel discovery proved from its author: The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him. Observe here,

      [1.] How fit he was to make this discovery, and every way qualified for it. He and he alone was worthy to take the book, and to open the seals, Rev. v. 9. For, First, He is the only-begotten Son; and who so likely to know the Father as the Son? or in whom is the Father better known than in the Son? Matt. xi. 27. He is of the same nature with the Father, so that he who hath seen him hath seen the Father, ch. xiv. 9. The servant is not supposed to know so well what his Lord does as the Son, ch. xv. 15. Moses was faithful as a servant, but Christ as a Son. Secondly, He is in the bosom of the Father. He had lain in his bosom from eternity. When he was here upon earth, yet still, as God, he was in the bosom of the Father, and thither he returned when he ascended. In the bosom of the Father; that is, 1. In the bosom of his special love, dear to him, in whom he was well pleased, always his delight. All God’s saints are in his hand, but his Son was in his bosom, one in nature and essence, and therefore in the highest degree one in love. 2. In the bosom of his secret counsels. As there was a mutual complacency, so there was a mutual consciousness, between the Father and Son (Matt. xi. 27); none so fit as he to make known God, for none knew his mind as he did. Our most secret counsels we are said to hide in our bosom (in pectore); Christ was privy to the bosom-counsels of the Father. The prophets sat down at his feet as scholars; Christ lay in his bosom as a friend. See Eph. iii. 11.

      [2.] How free he was in making this discovery: He hath declared. Him is not in the original. He has declared that of God which no man had at any time seen or known; not only that which was hid of God, but that which was hid in God (Eph. iii. 9), exegesato–it signifies a plain, clear, and full discovery, not by general and doubtful hints, but by particular explications. He that runs may now read the will of God and the way of salvation. This is the grace, this the truth, that came by Jesus Christ.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Beareth witness (). Historical (dramatic) present indicative of this characteristic word in John (cf. 1:17f.). See John 1:32; John 1:34 for historical examples of John’s witness to Christ. This sentence is a parenthesis in Westcott and Hort’s text, though the Revised Version makes a parenthesis of most of verse 14. The witness of John is adduced in proof of the glory full of grace and truth already claimed for the Incarnate Logos.

Crieth (). Second perfect active indicative of , old verb for loud crying, repeated in dramatic form again for emphasis recalling the wonderful Voice in the wilderness which the Beloved Disciple can still hear echoing through the years.

This was ( ). Imperfect indicative where John throws the tense back in past time when he looked forward to the coming of the Messiah as in Ac 3:10 where we should prefer “is” (). Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 96) calls this the “imperfect of sudden appreciation of the real state of things.”

Of whom I said ( ). But B C and a corrector of Aleph (Westcott and Hort) have “the one who said,” a parenthetical explanation about the Baptist, not the words of the Baptist about Christ.

After me ( ). See also 1:27. Later in time John means. He described “the Coming One” ( ) before he saw Jesus. The language of John here is precisely that in Mt 3:11 (cf. Mr 1:7). The Beloved Disciple had heard the Baptist say these very words, but he also had the Synoptic Gospels.

Is become (). Second perfect active indicative of . It is already an actual fact when the Baptist is speaking.

Before me ( ). In rank and dignity, the Baptist means, “the one mightier than I” (Mr 1:7) and “mightier than I” (Mt 3:11). In Joh 3:28 (before him, the Christ) does mean priority in time, but not here. This superior dignity of the Messiah John proudly recognizes always (Joh 3:25-30).

For he was before me ( ). Paradox, but clear. He had always been ( ) before John in his Pre-incarnate state, but “after” John in time of the Incarnation, but always ahead of John in rank immediately on his Incarnation. (superlative with ablative) occurs here when only two are compared as is common in the vernacular Koine. So the Beloved Disciple came first () to the tomb, ahead of Peter (20:4). So also in 15:18 means “before you” as if it were . Verse 30 repeats these words almost exactly.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

EXTENDED WITNESS OF JOHN THE BAPTIST, v. 15-34

1 ) “John bare witness of him,” (loannes rnarturei peri autou) “John witnessed concerning him,” concerning Jesus Christ, The Word, The Life, The Light, and The Truth, Joh 1:1; Joh 1:4; Joh 1:7; Joh 1:9; Joh 1:14; Joh 14:6; Joh 17:3; Joh 17:17; Mal 3:1. Witnessing of the coming of Jesus was John’s mission, and he filled it admirably. So should every witness of Him, Act 1:8.

2) “And cried, saying,” (kai kekragen legon) “And he cried out repeatedly, saying,” or confirming the identity of the coming Messiah and appealing to men to prepare for His coming, Mar 1:3-4.

3) “This was he of whom I spake,” (houtos en hon eipon) “This man was he (about) whom I said,” Luk 3:1518. John thus affirmed the true identity of Jesus Christ as the Messiah and that he was himself the prophesied forerunner.

4) “He that cometh after me,” (ho opiso mou erchomenos) “The one who (is) coming after me,” who makes His appearance after me, in this world, whose way I am preparing, Isa 40:3; Mal 31; Mar 1:7-8.

5) “Is preferred before me:- (emprosthen mou gegonnen) “He has become before me,” or come to exist before me, has been longed for before me, Luk 2:25-38, as expressed by both Simeon and Anna, the aged; Joh 3:31; Joh 3:33 recognizes the preexistence and exalted Deity of Christ.

6) “For he was before me.” (hoti protos mou en) “Because he was first (existed first) before me,” as the eternal Word, and Son, with the Father, Php_2:5-10; He Himself declared, “Before Abraham was I am,” or I existed- John came to exalt Jesus, not himself, Jas 4:10; Luk 14:11.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

15. John testifieth. He now relates what was the preaching of John. By using the verb testifieth ( μαρτυρεῖ) in the present tense, (27) he denotes a continued act, and certainly this doctrine must be continually in force, as if the voice of John were continually resounding in the ears of men. In the same manner he afterwards uses the word cry, to intimate that the doctrine of John was in no degree obscure or ambiguous, and that he did not mutter among a few men, (28) but openly, and with a loud voice, preached Christ. The first sentence is intended to convey the statement, that he was sent for the sake of Christ, and therefore that it would have been unreasonable that he should be exalted, while Christ was lying low.

This is he of whom I spoke. By these words he means that his intention was, from the beginning, to make Christ known, and that this was the design of his public discourses; as, indeed, there was no other way in which he could discharge his office as ambassador than by calling his disciples to Christ.

Who, coming after me. Though John the Baptist was older than Christ by a few months, yet he does not now speak of age; but as he had discharged the office of prophet for a short period before Christ appeared in public, so he makes himself the predecessor with respect to time. With respect, therefore, to public manifestation, Christ came after John the Baptist. The words which follow might be literally rendered, he was made before me, for he was before me; but the meaning is, that Christ was justly preferred to John, because he was more excellent. He therefore surrenders his office to Christ and — as the proverb runs — “delivers to him the torch,” or gives way to him as his successor. But as he arose later in the order of time, John reminds his hearers that this is no reason why he should not be preferred to himself, as his rank deserved. Thus, all who are superior to others, either in the gifts of God or in any degree of honor, must remain in their own rank, so as to be placed below Christ.

(27) “ En usant du verbe du temps present, a scavoir, Rend tesmoignage, et on pas, Rendoit ;” — “by using the verb in the present tense, giveth testimony, and not gave testimony. ”

(28) “ Qu’il n’a point parle entre ses dents, et communique la chose comme en secret a peu de gens;” — “that he did not speak between his teeth, and communicate the matter, as it were secretly, to a few persons.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(15) John bare witness of him, and cried.Better, John beareth witness of him, and crieth. The latter verb is past in tense, but present in meaning. For the sense comp. Note on Joh. 7:37. The writer thinks of the testimony as ever present, ever forceful. Twice on successive days had he heard them from the lips of the Baptist; three times within a few verses does he himself record them. (Comp. Joh. 1:27; Joh. 1:30.) They are among the words stamped on the heart in the crisis of life, and as fresh in the aged Apostle as they had been in the youthful inquirer. He remembers how he heard them, and from whom they came. That wondrous spiritual power in their midst which all men felt, whose witness men would have accepted had he declared that he was himself the Christ, uttered his witness then, and it holds good now. It is quoted here as closely bound up with the personal reminiscence of Joh. 1:14, and with the thought of Joh. 1:6-7.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

15. John bare witness of him Our Evangelist adduces the Baptist’s testimony not to prove (as he will in Joh 1:19-34) that Jesus, and not himself, was the Messiah; but to prove what he is just now saying, that the Messiah was truly of this exalted nature. And cried The great truth was maintained with a cry; a lofty voice that made the wilderness ring.

Cometh after me preferred before me Put in the form of a paradox; my successor is my predecessor. He is my successor in time, my predecessor in a previous eternity. This was indeed crying up the divine Comer to his true divine height.

For he was before me Literally, he was my First. Not merely my former, but my absolute FIRST: first in the train of all my predecessors; therefore at the eternal beginning. The quotation of the Baptist’s words embraces but this verse, and then follows the Evangelist in continuance.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘John bears witness of him and cries, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is become before me, for he was before me’.” ’

So as to leave his readers in no doubt the author now stresses again that ‘the Word’ is the One to whom John the Baptiser bears witness. John, who has been sent by God (Joh 1:6), and whose powerful ministry is everywhere acknowledged, now testifies to the superiority of Jesus. He says of the Word, ‘He who comes after me is now ranked and placed before me, for He existed (was) before me’ (compare Joh 1:30).

‘He was before me.’ In context the statement must intend to be seen as giving the significance ‘was in existence before me’ as well as ‘was before me in precedence in God’s purposes’. For John is aware of the uniqueness of the One to Whom he testifies. He is aware that He has come from God and from Heaven with a unique pre-existence. The past tense makes this abundantly clear. Had he been thinking of Jesus’ future status he would have used another tense.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The closing testimony of the prologue:

v. 15. John bare witness of Him and cried, saying, This was He of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me; for He was before me.

v. 16. And of His fullness have all we received, and grace for grace.

v. 17. For the Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

v. 18. No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.

The glory of the Messiah, of the Word Incarnate, had been testified to even by John the Baptist, and the evangelist was not the first one to call attention to this feature. He had called out loud, without fear and dread of the consequences. His witnessing and preaching had been in the nature of continual, earnest, impressive urging and pleading, in order to prepare the hearts for the reception of Christ. John had pointed forward to Jesus and His coming. Christ came after him in point of time, but He was before His herald in point of honor, authority, power, glory. In these things the Master had at once gained the ascendancy, leaving John far behind. He was prior to John, as the eternal Son of God, and His priority was evident in every respect. This testimony of John the Baptist agreed in substance exactly with that of the evangelist.

And the latter now continues his testimony. Out of the fullness of Jesus we all, all believers, have received, and grace for grace. The fount of mercy never dries up; ever and again fresh grace and mercy appears over and above that already received. Because sin abounds and ever again brings on transgressions, therefore grace and mercy must abound still more Though we use up grace daily, there is always anew and rich supply on hand from the inexhaustible store of God, Rom 5:20. The river of grace flowing from the Savior is always full of water. Under the Old Covenant, indeed, the opposite of grace, merit and works, was prominent. The Law as given by Moses demanded full obedience and threatened the transgressor with temporal and eternal punishment. But Moses, though the keeper and preacher of the Law by God’s command, was a mere man, and therefore the Law itself could not have lasting value in the way in which it had been in use among the Jews. But Christ is the God-man, the Word of God Incarnate; He brings grace and truth which will have an abiding place in the world. Grace, the fullness of the assurance of free pardon, and truth, the Word of the Gospel which proclaims grace and mercy, and is the sum and substance of the truth and faithfulness of God, came through Jesus Christ, who came down in His own person, not only to preach the Gospel, but to be the exponent of the Gospel and make its proclamation possible. And another fact the Christians should remember. God is the essence of faithfulness and mercy toward all men. But His essence is hidden before the eyes of men. So far as the knowledge and the application of His beautiful attributes are therefore concerned, someone had to reveal them to men, otherwise the veil of Moses would have been before their eyes until the end of time. And so the only-begotten Son, He who was with the Father from eternity, and, as a matter of fact, is in eternity in the bosom of the Father, could and did reveal and proclaim the Father to us. He is of the same essence with the Father, He is one with the Father, He was intimately acquainted with the counsel of love for the salvation of mankind. And this He revealed to us, giving us thereby the correct picture of God, not one representing Him as the threatening, terrible Judge, but as the gracious Father for the sake of the Son that earned salvation for all men. Note: The proclaiming of the secrets of God was done by Christ at the same time that He was in God’s bosom. While He was on earth, He was yet in the bosom of the Father; for He is in the bosom of the Father from everlasting to everlasting. In coming to this earth to assume true human nature, He did not leave the bosom of His Father. The glorious intimacy of the Holy Trinity was never interrupted.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Joh 1:15. John bare witness of him, &c. This might probably happen at the time when Jesus made his first appearance amongthose who came to be baptized by John; when at this offering to receive his baptism, though John had been a stranger to him before, and knew him not by any personal acquaintance with him, yet, by some powerful impression of the mind, he presently discerned that this was He, whom he before had taught the people to expect, and of whose person he had given them so high a character; for it was plain from his knowledge of Jesus, that John at first would have declined baptizing him, as an honour of which he looked upon himself to be utterly unworthy. Nor is it to be doubted, but that when first, he knew the Person of whose appearance he had raised such expectations by his preaching, he would immediately be ready to acquaint his hearers that this was he who was intended by him; which they themselves might have beenready to conclude, from the uncommon veneration and respect wherewith he was treated by the Baptist, who had been always used to treat men with the greatest plainness. Comp. Joh 1:27; Joh 1:30 with Mat 3:14. Erasmus supposes that St. John, in the words, He that cometh after me, is preferred, &c. refers to the honours which he knew had been paid to Jesus in his infancy by the angels, who announced his birth to the shepherds; by the shepherds themselves; by the eastern magi; by Simeon and Anna, &c. honours which could not be paralleled by any thing that had happened to him: but the words have, I doubt not, a more extensive meaning; comprehending the superior dignity of Christ’s nature, office, commission, and exaltation as Mediator, as may be collected from Mat 3:11 the passage here referred to. The Baptist adds, For he was before me; “It is fit that Jesus should be raised above me, because he is a Person superior in nature to me; for though he was born after me, he existed before me.” This undoubtedly refers to that state of infinite and eternal glory in which Christ existed before his incarnation, of which the Baptist speaks so plainly, ch. Joh 3:31. See the 10th article in the Argument.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Joh 1:15 . It is to this great fact of salvation to which the Baptist bears testimony, and his testimony was confirmed by the gracious experience of us all (Joh 1:16 ).

] Representation of it as present, as if the testimony were still sounding forth.

] “clamat Joh. cum fiducia et gaudio, uti magnum praeconem decet,” Bengel. He crieth , comp. Joh 7:28 ; Joh 7:37 , Joh 12:44 ; Rom 9:27 . The Perfect in the usual classical sense as a present ( , Dem. 271, 11; Soph. Aj . 1136; Arist. Plut . 722, Vesp . 415). Not so elsewhere in the N. T. Observe, too, the solemn circumstantial manner in which the testimony is introduced: “ John bears witness of Him, and cries while he says .”

] is used, because John is conceived as speaking at the present time , and therefore as pointing back to a testimony historically past : “This was He whom I meant at the time when I said.” With , “ to speak of any one ,” comp. Joh 10:36 ; Xen. Cyr . vii. 3. 5; Plato, Crat . p. 432 C; Hom. Il . . 479. See on Joh 8:27 .

. ] “ He who cometh after me is come before me; ” in how far is stated in the clause , which assigns the reason. The meaning of the sentence and the point of the expression depend upon this, namely, that Christ in His human manifestation appeared after John, but yet, as the pre-mundane Logos, preceded him, because He existed before John. On with an adverb, especially of place, in the sense of coming as in Joh 7:25 , see Krger on Xen. Anab . i. 2. 7; Khner, II. p. 39; Ngelsbach, note on Iliad , Exo 3 , p. 295. Comp. Xen. Cyrop . vii. 1. 22, ; Anab . vii. 1. 10; i. 8. 24. Both are adverbs of place , so that, however, the time is represented as local, not the rank ( , Chrysostom; so most critics, even Lcke, Tholuck, Olshausen, Maier, De Wette), [102] which would involve a diversity in the manner of construing the two particles (the first being taken as relating to time ), and the sentence then becomes trivial, and loses its enigmatical character, since, indeed, the one who appears later need not possess on that account any lower dignity. Origen long ago rightly understood both clauses as relating to time, though the second is not therefore to be rendered “He was before me” (Luther and many, also Brckner, Baeumlein), since is not the word; [103] nor yet: “He came into being before me,” which would not be referable “to the O. T. advent of Christ” (Lange), but, in harmony with the idea of , to His having come forth from God prior to all time. It is decisive against both, that would be tautological, an argument which is not to be set aside by any fanciful rendering of (see below). Nonnus well remarks: , . Comp. Godet and Hengstenberg; also in his Christol . III. 1, p. 675, “my successor is my predecessor,” where, however, his assumption of a reference to Mal 3:1 is without any hint to that effect in the words. According to Luthardt (comp Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf . II. 256), what is meant to be said is: “He who at first walked behind me, as if he were my disciple , has taken precedence of me, i.e. He has become my master .” But the enigma of the sentence lies just in this, that . expresses something still future , as this also answers to the formal used of the Messiah’s advent. Hofmann’s view, therefore, is more correct, Schriftbew . II. 1, p. 10 ff., namely, that the meaning of the Baptist is, “while Jesus is coming after him, He is already before him” . But even thus . . amounts to a figurative designation of rank , which is not appropriate to the clause , which assigns the reason, and manifestly refers to time.

] is a direct portion of the Baptist’s testimony which has just been adduced (against Hengstenberg), as Joh 1:30 shows, presenting the key to the preceding Oxymoron: for before me He was in existence . The reference to rank (Chrysostom, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, and most comm., also B. Crusius and Hofmann), according to which we should construe, “He was more than I” , is at once overthrown by , instead of which we ought to have . Comp. Mat 3:11 . Only a rendering which refers to time ( i.e. only the pre-existence of the Logos) solves the apparent opposition between subject and predicate in the preceding declaration.

in the sense of , answering to the representation, “first in comparison with me” . [104] See Herm. ad Viger . p. 718; Dorvill. ad Charit . p. 478; Bernhardy, Eratosth . 42, p. 122. We must not, with Winer and Baur, force in the idea of absolute priority. [105] Comp. Joh 15:18 ; and Buttmann, neut. Gr . p. 74 [E. T. p. 84]. This also against Ewald (“ far earlier”), Hengstenberg, Brckner, Godet (“the principle of my existence”). To refuse to the Baptist all idea of the pre-existence of the Messiah , and to represent his statement merely as one put into his mouth by the evangelist (Strauss, Weisse, B. Bauer, De Wette, Scholten, and many others), is the more baseless, the more pointed and peculiar is the testimony; the greater the weight the evangelist attaches to it, the less it can be questioned that deep-seeing men were able, by means of such O. T. passages as Mal 3:1 , Isa 6:1 ff., Dan 7:13 ff., to attain to that idea, which has even Rabbinical testimony in its support (Bertholdt, Christol . p. 131), and the more resolutely the pioneer of the Messiah, under the influence of divine revelation, took his stand as the last of the prophets, the Elias who had come.

[102] This rendering is not ungrammatical (in opposition to Hengstenberg), if it only be maintained that, even while adopting it, the local meaning of is not changed. (Comp. Gen 48:20 ; Bar 2:5 .)

[103] So, too, in Mat 19:8 and Joh 20:27 , does not mean esse , but fieri (against Baeumlein); so also in passages such as Luk 1:5 , 2Pe 2:1 .

[104] Comp. the genitive relation in , Col 1:15 .

[105] Philippi, d. Eingang d. Joh. Ev . p. 179: “He is the unconditioned first (i.e. the eternal), in relation to me.” The comparison of A and in the Revelation is inapplicable here, because we have not the absolute , but .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. (16) And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. (17) For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (18) No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (19) And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? (20) And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed I am not the Christ. (21) And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? and he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? and he answered, No. (22) Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? (23) He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. (24) And they which were sent were of the Pharisees: (25) And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? (26) John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; (27) He it is, who coming after me, is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose. (28) These things were done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. (29) The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world!

Here we have the introduction of John the Baptist, the herald and harbinger of Christ. In addition to what hath been offered on the Person and Office of this man, Mat 3 and Mat 11 to which I refer, I would just remark what a dignity and glory John ascribes unto the Lord Jesus Christ, in testimony of his own nothingness, and the infinite greatness of Jesus. I pray the Reader to observe these things. He speaks of his water baptism, when compared to Christ’s spiritual baptism, as nothing. And do not overlook how fully John preached the Godhead of the Lord Jesus, when declaring that he should baptize with the Holy Ghost. Could any less than God baptize with the baptisms of the Holy Ghost? Could any less than God bless with the blessing of God? And I beg the Reader to observe yet further, with what equal strength John bare witness to the momentous doctrine of redemption by the blood of the Lamb, when he called upon the people to behold Christ, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world! Christ is called the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev 13:8 . Indeed the scripture is full of this subject, in allusion to Christ. Exo 12 , throughout Lev 9:3 ; Isa 53:7 ; Rev 5:6 . And what is never to be lost sight of, Christ is the Lamb of God, one of God’s own providing. Rom 3:25 . And I must beg yet further to observe, from the very great preciousness of this man’s testimony to both those grand points; namely, the Godhead of Christ, and redemption by his blood, that John was specially and personally ordained for this express purpose. He was predicted by the Prophets Isaiah and Malachi, to come as a voice in the wilderness to prepare the way of the Lord. And he was to come in the spirit and power of Elias, and cry aloud as the witness of the Lord. And to set forth the greatness of this man’s character and office yet more, when the time arrived for his appearing, an angel was sent to speak of his birth, who declared that he should be great in the sight of the Lord, and be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb. Luk 1:11-15 . Thus ordained, and thus consecrated, the whole purport of his ministry may be summed up in those two grand evidences which he bore to the person of Christ, and to the one great work of Christ. So that here is God the Holy Ghost raising up this man, this greatest of Prophets (as our Lord declared him,) born among women, to bear testimony to Jesus, and to make a public outcry of it through the Church. Reader! what are your views of these things? Oh! how truly blessed to my soul! Oh! how gracious in God the Holy Ghost, to give such testimony in the present day of a Christ-despising generation !

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

XIX

THE CULMINATION OF JOHN’S MINISTRY

In the preceding chapter we have considered the first part of the culmination of John’s ministry, to wit: his baptism of the Messiah, in which, by a divine sign, and the Father’s attestation, he was able to identify Jesus of Nazareth as the person of the Messiah. There remains for consideration in this chapter his testimony to the person so identified, and his presentation of him to Israel in all his messianic offices as the supreme object of faith. Thus as he was the first to preach evangelical repentance, so now must he be the first to preach evangelical faith. His continuation of his ministry after the baptism of the Messiah, was to afford opportunity of this completion of his testimony.

All of this testimony of John the Baptist, after the baptism of Jesus, comes to us through one historian, the apostle John, himself a disciple of John the Baptist. There are four distinct occasions and one general reference, doubtless identical with one of the four. Three of these occasions come in three successive days, certainly full forty days after the baptism, for the forty days of the temptation of Jesus intervene.

The first (and doubtless the second) is John’s reply to a deputation from Jerusalem (Joh 1:19-28 ). The second is the following day when he sees Jesus the first time since the baptism (Joh 1:29-34 ). The third is the morrow after when he identifies him to two of his own disciples (Joh 1:35-36 ). The fourth occurred in the early Judean ministry of Jesus after his first Passover in Jerusalem since his baptism (Joh 3:22-30 ). The general reference of Joh 1:15 applies to the second of these four.

It was impossible for the ecclesiastical authority at Jerusalem to ignore the ministry of John. The whole nation was stirred. The people generally accepted him as a reformer and prophet. And yet his ministry was entirely independent of the Sanhedrin, and of Jerusalem, and of the Temple ritual. Questions were arising in men’s minds, Is this the Messiah, or is it Elijah who precedes the Messiah (Mal 4:5 ), or is it the great prophet whose coming was predicted by Moses, (Deu 18:15-18 ), what signs accredit him, who sent him, what is the source of his authority, and what is his mission?

Finally, at the instance of the Pharisees, whom he had denounced as the offspring of vipers, a deputation from the Sanhedrin, consisting of priests and Levites, were sent to press him for a definite answer on these points. They found him at the fords of the Jordan (Bethany or Bethabara), but sharp and curt in replying to their inquisition. He disclaimed promptly being either the Messiah, or Elijah, or the Moses prophet. For himself he was only the voice of one crying in the wilderness as predicted by Isaiah. To their questions, “why baptizeth thou, then, and what sign showest thou,” and by whose authority he acted, he returned no definite reply the first day, but bore this testimony: “In the midst of you standeth one whom ye know not, even he that cometh after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose.”

The next day, however, the deputation doubtless yet with him, he seeth Jesus returning from the temptation, and answers more particularly, pointing to him: “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man who is before me; for he was before me. And I knew him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, for this cause I came baptizing in water. And John bare witness saying, I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven; and it abode upon him, and I knew him not; but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit. And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

This is his great testimony: “Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. I saw him anointed by the Holy Spirit. I heard the Father’s attestation. This is the Lamb of God that penally bears the sin of the world the great expiatory sacrifice this is the Son of God this is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.” Prophets, priests, and kings are anointed with the holy anointing oil whose recipe was prescribed by Moses (Exo 30:22-23 ). With this was Aaron anointed (Psa 103:2 ); and David (Psa 89:20 ); and Elisha (1Ki 19:16 ). Messiah means the Anointed One. In the case of Jesus he was anointed with the Spirit, which the holy oil symbolized. To two of his disciples he repeats on the morrow: “Behold the Lamb of God!”

The account of John’s last testimony to Jesus is a singular bit of history: “After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there; and they came and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison. There arose therefore a questioning on the part of John’s disciples with a Jew about purifying. And they came unto John and said to him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou hast borne witness, behold, the same baptizeth and all men come to him. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it have been given him from heaven. Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, that standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is made full. He must increase, but I must decrease.” “He that cometh from above is above all; he that is of the earth is of the earth, and of the earth he speaketh; he that cometh from heaven is above all. What he hath seen and heard, of that he beareth witness; and no man receiveth his witness. He that hath received his witness hath set his seal to this, that God is true. For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God; for he giveth not the Spirit by measure. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” “When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples), he left Judea and departed again into Galilee” (Joh 3:22 ; Joh 4:3 ).

The first thought suggested by this narrative is the concurrent ministry of Jesus and John brought near together. The time was when Jesus was closing his early Judean ministry, having just left Jerusalem, where he attended the first Passover after his baptism, where he purified the Temple according to Mal 3:1-2 , wrought many signs and was visited by Nicodemus.

Jesus was on the northern line of Judea, for the record says that when he left for Galilee “He must needs go through Samaria.” John was close at hand at a place called Aenon, near to Salim, where was much water or many waters. The site has not been thoroughly settled. Dr. Barclay locates it in a valley five miles northeast of Jerusalem (City of the Great King, pp. 558-570). Robertson ( Biblical Researches , Vol. Ill, p. 333) conjectures “Salim over against Nabulus.” C. R. Conder ( TEnt Work in Palestine , Vol. I, p. 91f) locates it: “Salim near the Shechem.” Professor McGarvey, one of the best writers on the Holy Land, thinks he found the identical site in a beautiful valley of the Wady Farra, about one mile wide and three miles long, where were abundant places for baptism in which he saw “swarms of brown-skin boys, both large and small, bathing at different places.” (Cited in “Hovey on John’s Gospel,” from Journal and Messenger, September 10, 1879.) My own mind is impressed that Professor McGarvey found the Aenon of our text.

Some suggest this rendering of Joh 3:23 : “And John was holding a camp meeting at Aenon, near to Salim, because there was much water there for the campers, their camels and other beasts, and they came and were baptized.”

A significant fact about the work of both appears from Joh 4:1 , viz.: Both made disciples before baptizing them and they both made disciples in the same way, by leading them to repentance and faith. Proof for John, Mat 3:2 ; Act 19:4 . Proof for Jesus, Mar 1:15 . Another fact is disclosed by Joh 4:1 , viz.: By this time Jesus was increasing and John was decreasing, since Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John. But the Pharisees discovered and made use of this fact to make a breach between John and Jesus. When Jesus heard of this meanness, he prudently left Judea, where his work was close enough to John for enemies to make invidious comparison, and passed on into Samaria.

The insidious trouble was brought to John’s disciples at Aenon by a Jew, doubtless a Pharisee, who taunted John’s disciples with the increase of Jesus and the decrease of John. The matter arose this way: “Therefore [referring to the increase of one and the decrease of the other] there arose a questioning about purifying between John’s disciples and a Jew.” The following may be inferred from its being made a question of purifying:

(1) That the law and its traditions already, and by real authority, provided for purifying ablutions of the body (See “divers washings” (Greek, baptize) at Heb 9:10 , and “bathe themselves” and “washings” at Mar 7:4 (Greek, baptize).

(2) That, therefore, a Pharisee would contend, denying that John or Jesus had authority to institute an ordinance, particularly in John’s case, since Jesus by his baptizing more was supplanting him.

John’s disciples, jealous for their leader against Jesus, felt it keenly, hence they say to John, in bitterness, “Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou hast borne witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him” (Joh 3:26 ).

The greatness of John’s reply in the last testimony to Jesus is seen from the following items:

(1) He was entitled to nothing more than had been given him.

(2) He reminded them that he had already borne witness that he was not the Messiah, but only his forerunner.

(3) That Jesus was the Messiah and hence, as he had already borne witness, must increase while he decreased.

(4) That Jesus was the bridegroom, entitled to the bride, while he was only the friend of the bridegroom.

(5) That what depressed them was John’s fullness of joy.

(6) That Jesus, being sent from heaven, and having the Spirit given him without measure, must be above any earthly man, and would speak the words of God.

(7) That Jesus, as the Son of the Father, was beloved of the Father and had rightly all things given to him.

(8) Therefore “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him” (Joh 3:36 ). This is his last and sublimest testimony.

John should have gone on with his work after he baptized Jesus, as has already been said, to have opportunity to complete his testimony and to present Jesus in all his messianic offices as the supreme object of faith.

A singular book of the baptismal controversy arose from this passage, setting forth two points:

(1) Dr. Edward Beecher, son of Dr. Lyman Beecher and brother of Henry Ward Beecher, followed the Jew-Pharisee in contending that baptism was only a question of purifying.

(2) And as purifying among the Jews was a general term, some purifying done by sprinkling, some by pouring, and some by dipping, it was immaterial which of the three ways should be employed in baptizing.

The great fallacy of his book is that only purifying by immersion was involved in this question. But regarding this last testimony of John we cannot be sure that Joh 3:31-36 are the words of John the Baptist and therefore we cannot be dogmatic about it. The historian John does not always make it clear where his quotation stops and where he resumes his narrative. In this case, if the words be the evangelist’s, he is only filling out the conclusions of John’s testimony. He leaves us in the same doubt at Joh 1:15-18 .

QUESTIONS

1. From which historian cornea all John’s testimony concerning Jesus after his baptism?

2. What four occasions?

3. To which of the four belongs the general reference in Joh 1:15 ?

4. What makes the first occasion very important, and how did it naturally arise?

5. What was the sum of John’s testimony the first day?

6. Was the deputation present the next day, and why do you think so?

7. What of the sum of the testimony this time?

8. What part of this testimony repeated to two of his disciples the third day?

9. What does “Messiah” mean?

10. Where do you find Moses’ recipe for the holy anointing oil?

11. What high officers were anointed with it, and what one case each?

12. In the case of Jesus, how anointed?

13. What is the account of John’s last testimony to Jesus?

14. What is the first thought suggested by this narrative?

15. What is the time?

16. Explain their proximity.

17. What is the matter with the rendering of Joh 3:23 as suggested by some?

18. What fact about the work of both appears from Joh 4:1 ?

19. What scriptures show that both made disciples in the same way?

20. What other fact disclosed by Joh 4:1 ?

21. Who discovered and made use of this fact to make a breach between John and Jesus?

22. When Jesus heard of this meanness what did he do?

23. How was the insidious trouble brought to John’s disciples at Aenon?

24. In what form did the matter arise?

25. What may be inferred from its being made a question of purifying?

26. How did this affect John’s disciples?

27. What of the greatness of John’s reply in the last testimony to Jesus?

28. Why should John have gone on with his work after he baptized Jesus?

29. What singular book of the baptismal controversy arose from this passage, what its points and what its great fallacy?

30. May we be sure that Joh 3:31-36 is the testimony of John the Baptist?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

Ver. 15. John cried, saying ] He entered upon his calling in the year of Jubilee, which was wont to be published by the voice of a crier, with the sound of a trumpet. And hitherto allude the prophets and evangelists, that say he cried, and call him, “the voice of a crier.”

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

15. ] The testimony of John, so important as being the fulfilment of the very object for which he was , is in this prologue ranged, so to speak, parallel with the assertions and testimony of the Evangelist himself. So that this verse does not interrupt the train of thought, but confirms by this important testimony the assertion ., shewing that John bore witness to His pr-existence . Then ( Joh 1:16 ) the . . . . is again taken up. Euthymius paraphrases: , , , , , .

, present, for solemnity as part of the testimony to Him, not only once given, but still subsisting.

] crieth (the perfect being, in sense, present; ‘hath cried ,’ so that the voice is still sounding), see ch. Joh 7:37 : “clamat Johannes cum fiducia et gaudio, uti magnum prconem decet.” Bengel.

] This form of the words seems to shew, as indeed would appear from the announcement of his own office by the Baptist, that he had uttered these words in the power of the Spirit concerning Him whose forerunner he was before he saw and recognized Him in the flesh . Then, on doing so , he exclaimed, This was He of whom I said, &c. This view seems to be borne out by his own statement, Joh 1:33 , and by the order of the narrative in Mat 3:11-13 .

. . ] In point of time; not of birth merely or principally, nor of commencement of official life: but, inasmuch as John was His Forerunner , on account of official position .

. ] The E. V. is here very accurate, is preferred before me; the setting forth the advancement to official dignity before which John’s office waned and decreased (ch. Joh 3:30 ), which took place even while John’s course was being fulfilled. The only objection to ‘ preferred ’ is, its possible ambiguity. Even Dr. Johnson has fallen into the mistake, in his Dictionary, of quoting this passage as an instance of the sense “to love more than another.” [‘ Taketh place ,’] ‘ is advanced ,’ ‘hath come to be’ (which however again is ambiguous), are other possible renderings. This sense of (besides reff.) is justified by classical usage in Plato, who uses for prponere , Legg. vii. 805. See also i. 631; ver. 743. Also Demosthenes, , p. 1296. 26, .

] The only sense which these words will bear, is, because (or, for, but better because ) He was (not , but as in Joh 1:1 ) before Me; i.e. ‘He existed , was in being, before me.’ The question raised by Lcke and De Wette, whether it is probable that the Baptist had, or expressed such views of the pr-existence of Christ, is not one for us to deal with, in the face of so direct a testimony as is given to the fact , here and in ch. Joh 3:27 ff. In all probability, the Evangelist was himself a disciple of the Baptist: and if he has given us a fuller and somewhat differing account of his testimony to Christ, it is because his means of information were ampler than those of the other Evangelists. The questioners seem to forget that the Baptist was divinely raised up and commissioned, and full of the Holy Ghost , and spoke in that power; his declarations were not therefore merely conclusions which he had arrived at by natural means, the study of the prophecies, &c. (Lcke, p. 353): but inspirations and revelations of the Spirit . This last is fully recognized by Olshausen (ii. 61).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Joh 1:15 . . At first sight this verse seems an irrelevant interpolation thrust in between the of Joh 1:14 and the. of Joh 1:16 . Euthymius gives the connection: , , , . “John witnesses and cries, saying . This was He of whom I said ,” etc. This testimony was given to Andrew and John, Joh 1:30 ; but when the previous “saying” occurred we do not know, unless it be referred to the answer to the authorities, Joh 1:27 . The meaning of the testimony will be considered in the next section of the Gospel, which is entitled “The Testimony of John”.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

cried = hath cried aloud. was. As in Joh 1:1.

after me. In the order of ministry.

is preferred before me = had being before me (as to time).

for = because.

before me = first: i.e. (already) before me.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

15.] The testimony of John, so important as being the fulfilment of the very object for which he was , is in this prologue ranged, so to speak, parallel with the assertions and testimony of the Evangelist himself. So that this verse does not interrupt the train of thought, but confirms by this important testimony the assertion ., shewing that John bore witness to His pr-existence. Then (Joh 1:16) the . . . . is again taken up. Euthymius paraphrases: , , , , , .

, present, for solemnity-as part of the testimony to Him, not only once given, but still subsisting.

] crieth (the perfect being, in sense, present; hath cried, so that the voice is still sounding), see ch. Joh 7:37 : clamat Johannes cum fiducia et gaudio, uti magnum prconem decet. Bengel.

] This form of the words seems to shew, as indeed would appear from the announcement of his own office by the Baptist, that he had uttered these words in the power of the Spirit concerning Him whose forerunner he was before he saw and recognized Him in the flesh. Then, on doing so, he exclaimed, This was He of whom I said, &c. This view seems to be borne out by his own statement, Joh 1:33, and by the order of the narrative in Mat 3:11-13.

. .] In point of time; not of birth merely or principally, nor of commencement of official life: but, inasmuch as John was His Forerunner, on account of official position.

. ] The E. V. is here very accurate,-is preferred before me; the setting forth the advancement to official dignity before which Johns office waned and decreased (ch. Joh 3:30), which took place even while Johns course was being fulfilled. The only objection to preferred is, its possible ambiguity. Even Dr. Johnson has fallen into the mistake, in his Dictionary, of quoting this passage as an instance of the sense to love more than another. [Taketh place,] is advanced, hath come to be (which however again is ambiguous), are other possible renderings. This sense of (besides reff.) is justified by classical usage in Plato, who uses for prponere, Legg. vii. 805. See also i. 631; ver. 743. Also Demosthenes, , p. 1296. 26, .

] The only sense which these words will bear, is, because (or, for, but better because) He was (not , but as in Joh 1:1) before Me; i.e. He existed, was in being, before me. The question raised by Lcke and De Wette, whether it is probable that the Baptist had, or expressed such views of the pr-existence of Christ, is not one for us to deal with, in the face of so direct a testimony as is given to the fact, here and in ch. Joh 3:27 ff. In all probability, the Evangelist was himself a disciple of the Baptist: and if he has given us a fuller and somewhat differing account of his testimony to Christ, it is because his means of information were ampler than those of the other Evangelists. The questioners seem to forget that the Baptist was divinely raised up and commissioned, and full of the Holy Ghost, and spoke in that power; his declarations were not therefore merely conclusions which he had arrived at by natural means,-the study of the prophecies, &c. (Lcke, p. 353): but inspirations and revelations of the Spirit. This last is fully recognized by Olshausen (ii. 61).

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Joh 1:15. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

He was not before John in the order of human birth, yet he was truly before John, for he had an eternal pre-existence, as he was none other than the uncreated Son of God.

Joh 1:16-21. And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered; No.

As they meant, Art thou, literally, the prophet Elijah risen from the dead?

John said, I am not. Art thou that prophet of who Moses foretold?

And he answered, No. John gave short, sharp answers to these cavilers.

He was not a man of dainty words and polished periods, especially in dealing with ouch people as they were.

Joh 1:22-23. Then said they unto him, who art thou that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice–

Not the Word. Christ is that, but John was the voice.

Joh 1:23-37. Of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; he it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoes latchet I am not worthy to unloose. These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples, and looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the lamb of God! And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.

In the third chapter of the same Gospel, we have yet another testimony by John the Baptist concerning Christ.

This exposition consisted of readings from Mat 3:1-12; Joh 1:15-37; Joh 3:22-36.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

Joh 1:15. , bears witness) From this point the testimony of John is described more at large; and the whole passage, from Joh 1:15-28, is indeed composed of two members, but, however, both parts fall on the one day: for, in Joh 1:19, it is not said on the following day, or any like expression: and the discourse, Joh 1:29, etc., which John spake on the following day, has reference to the former part of the whole passage, rather than to the latter. Moreover, the following days are so closely connected with this one day, that the baptism of the Lord, and His sojourn in the wilderness, ought not to be interposed or subjoined, but be placed before. Therefore John in testifying of Him, and crying out [Joh 1:15], This is He of whom I spake, must either then have had Jesus before his eyes, after He had returned from the wilderness-comp. Joh 1:29; Joh 1:36, John seeth Jesus coming unto Him: looking upon Jesus as He walked-or at least have heard previously striking reports concerning Him.-, cried [cries]) This has the force of a present, as Joh 1:19, this is the record: because it is connected with , bears witness, and this itself, in its turn, is put instead of the Preterite. Some compare with this passage Aristides, who says, . John cries with confidence and joy, as becomes a great preacher [herald]: Joh 1:23 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, in order that all might hear and believe, Joh 1:7 [to bear witness of the Light, that all men through Him might believe].-, saying) After the baptism of Jesus.-, This) Jesus. John had spoken indefinitely before the baptism of the Lord, concerning the Christ coming after John, and he had not himself known Him by face: but in His baptism he recognised Him first, and immediately after bare witness that this Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.-, I spake) Before the baptism of Jesus. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, describe what John the Baptist said before the baptism of Jesus: but the Evangelist John records what John the Baptist said after the baptism of Jesus, in such a way, however, that at the same time he refers himself to what had been said previously. In Joh 1:15 the expression is, , whom I spake of, not , respecting whom I said: wherefore there is no need to suppose that the whole subsequent discourse is here referred to, as if uttered by John before the baptism of the Lord. It is enough that he said, that after him comes One much more powerful, . The other words, , …, the evangelist has appended, as promulgated by John the Baptist after that baptism. The speech is concise [in mode of expression] as often, in this sense: I spake, that there is one who is to come after me. And This is the very person who is come after me. This is the very person, saith he, who was made [is preferred] before me. (A similar mode of expression occurs Deu 33:18, And of Zebulun he said, Rejoice, Zebulun, in thy going out; and, Issachar, in thy tents, where similarly, under the title [lemmate] And to [or of] Zebulun he said, that also which he spake to Issachar is narrated). But, in verse 30, it is , concerning whom: and in the same passage the , I said, now [no longer bearing the meaning it had in Joh 1:15] denotes those things which John the Baptist, at the actual time of the baptism, and immediately after and previously.-, was made) This is not said of His Divine nature, but of the office of the Christ: and it is said again, Joh 1:27, and a third time, Joh 1:30, where He is called , a man. In this sense: He who was behind my back is now before my face, and has outstripped me, and left me behind Him. Jesus obtained this priority in His baptism [wherein He was proclaimed by GOD Himself to be the Son of GOD, before that He had any disciple.-V. g.]; Joh 1:31; Joh 1:34, I knew Him not, but that He should be made manifest to Israel-I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God; ch. Joh 3:30, He must increase, but I must decrease; comp. Php 3:13, Forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, where and are contrasted: nor does ever mean before [prius], in reference to time; in which case there would be nothing else asserted in this clause than what is asserted in the following [for He was before me]: but it means before [ante], in reference to position, and here in reference to grade. , to become, and to be, with an adverb, often change the signification of the adverb into that of a noun: ch. Joh 6:25 [ ]; Act 13:5 [ ]; Eph 2:13 [ ]; 2Th 2:7 [ ]; 2Ti 1:17 [ ]; Rom 7:3 [ ]; ch. Joh 16:7 [ .] So 2Sa 11:23, ; Act 5:34, . E. Schmid has collected more examples, at Mar 4:10 [ ].-, because) This is the idea: [I said that] He who was coming after me outstripped and left me behind, because He was far before me. The infinite excellence of His person is the foundation of His precedency, so to speak, in office.- ) Before me [nay, even prior to Abraham; yea, also prior to the world.-V. g.] A parallel expression is that: I am not worthy to unloose His shoes latchet [thong], Joh 1:27.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Joh 1:15

Joh 1:15

John beareth witness of him,-[The present, “beareth witness, is ordinarily explained by the permanent value of this testimony; but perhaps it is due rather to the fact that the author transports himself in a lifelike way backward to the moment when he heard this mysterious saying coming from such lips; he seems to himself to hear it still. We often use the present thus for the past in vivid narration.]

and crieth, saying, This was he of whom I said, He that cometh after me is become before me: for he was before me.-John was careful that they should not think he was the promised Messiah. He had already taught them that Jesus was greater than himself, and although born of the mother later than John, had existed long before John. Jesus said, “Before Abraham was born, I am. (Joh 8:58). John was careful that the honor which belonged to Jesus should not be bestowed on himself. [Though he is after me in point of revelation to the people, yet he at once takes position before me as the more important of the two and destined to continue in this superiority. The immerser now turns to the essential precedence both in time and rank. Though he was subsequent in revelation, yet he existed long before his revelation and long before John, his revealer, and this in such dignity that he was entitled to take precedence as soon as revealed.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

These four verses will be sufficient, I am sure, for our meditation at this time. They are so rich and so full. We notice first the testimony of John the Baptist, at which we were looking last Lords Day morning. We hear the great forerunner of the Messiah declare, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me (v. 15). John had come to baptize with water, but he said, There standeth one among you, whom ye know not; he it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoes latchet I am not worthy to unloose (vv. 26-27). Elsewhere we are told He was to baptize in the Holy Spirit and in fire.

Remember that John was speaking to a miscellaneous company at that time. There were those among that vast number who were to be baptized with the Holy Spirit, and those who because they rejected the message should be baptized with fire. The one is grace in all its fullness-the other is judgment. Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire (Mat 3:12). The finality of judgment in the lake of fire is pronounced at the Great White Throne, but the One who will sit upon the Great White Throne will be the same marvelous person who hung on Calvarys cross and died for our sins. Let us never forget that He has commanded, That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him (Joh 5:23).

May I say to any who may be reading this, that if you are out of Christ now, if you live and die out of Christ, you will be raised out of Christ in the resurrection of the unjust. You must stand as a Christless soul at the Great White Throne, and there you will face the One who once died to save you, who would have saved you if you had trusted Him, who longed to save you, who sent the Holy Spirit to plead with you, to urge you to surrender to Him and know His grace. But in that day it will be too late to know Him as Savior. Yours will be the awful baptism of fire. Thank God, it need not be. He came in grace to save you, He wants to save.

John points Him out definitely and says, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. John delights to give honor, as every real servant of Christ does, to the Lord Jesus Himself. He would retreat into the background that Christ might loom large before the vision of the people, that He might be the One who would occupy the attention of every soul. He is preferred before me, says John, for he was before me.

That is a very significant statement. That implies in itself the preexistence of our Lord Jesus Christ. If you take these words literally and refer them only to Christs life here on earth, then they are not true. He was not before John the Baptist in this respect. John the Baptist was born some three months before the Lord Jesus Christ was born of the blessed Virgin Mary.

But John says, He was before me. What does he mean? He means this: John began to be when he was born on earth, but Christ Jesus did not begin to be when He was born on earth. He is the One prophesied of in Mic 5:2; Mic 5:4: Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth. So John rightly says, He was before me.

Then you will remember our Lords own words on one occasion when He spoke very intimately of Abraham. He said, Abraham rejoiced to see my day (Joh 8:56). But the Jews looked upon Him in astonishment and indignation and said, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? (v. 57). They understood Him to say He had seen Abraham, but that was not what He said. He said Abraham had seen Him and was glad.

But they said, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and there is something significant in the age period they mention. They were addressing One who, according to earthly years, was in His early thirties. Was it not a rather remarkable thing that they should say, Thou art not yet fifty years old? Might we not have expected them to say thirty-five years, or at the utmost, forty years old? Why, then, did they say to Him, Thou art not yet fifty years old? Does that not in itself tell of the deep-marked lines of grief and sorrow that had already furrowed His face? He was marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men (Isa 52:14). And it may have been that as He passed through this scene the bitter anguish that He bore then, and the pain and suffering that the sins of men had already caused Him, had so seamed His face that He appeared to them rather like a man a little beyond middle age, than one simply entering upon the best of his days. Why, you have not yet reached fifty-Have you?-and yet you say you have seen Abraham. Jesus answered, Before Abraham was, I am (Joh 8:58). Before Abraham was? That goes back two thousand years and more. Before Abraham was, I am. He takes the incommunicable name of Deity, I am. In other words, He is saying, I am before Abraham. He not only lived before John the Baptist but before Abraham.

In the first chapter of Colossians the Holy Spirit says of Him, For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist (vv. 16-17).

Now look at that. John says, He was before me. Jesus says, I am before Abraham. The Holy Spirit says, He is before all things, the Eternal One.

The apostle John goes on to tell us, Of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace (v. 16). Elsewhere we read that in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9). All divine fullness dwells in Him, and out of that divine nature His very life has been poured into us.

John wrote many, many years after Christ had gone back to heaven, and all down through the centuries since then, whenever poor sinners have turned to Him in repentance, that fullness of blessing has been poured into their souls. Of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. Here the word translated for means against or in place of. Grace in place of grace, grace following upon grace. We are not called upon to live upon past experiences. Many of us remember when we were first saved of the grace that was poured into our souls when that took place. We look back and sing,

O happy day, that fixed my choice,

On Thee, my Saviour, and my God!

But that is not our experience today. That was grace indeed, wondrous grace! What we have now should be grace against grace, grace following upon grace, all down through the years. People ask me sometimes if I have ever received the second blessing. Why, dear friends, it has been nothing but blessing upon blessing now for almost fifty years, as I have been learning more and more of the wondrous fullness of Christ. So, if you have never trusted Him, you do not know what you are missing. You remember the old Scotch woman who was asked to tell what Jesus meant to her, and she said, Weel, ye ken; its better felt than telt. If you walk in fellowship with Him, you are receiving in its fullness grace upon grace, blessing following blessing, all through the years.

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ (v. 17). Here we have two dispensations. The law was given by Moses, and the law prevailed until Christ. Now grace and truth have come by Jesus Christ. The law was truth, but it was truth without grace. In the Gospels we have the law maintained and yet grace preached to all men everywhere who will put their trust in this Savior.

Now, in verse 18, we have a very remarkable statement: No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. We might read this as it has been otherwise translated: No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, subsisting in the bosom of the Father, he hath told him out. That is, He has given us to know God in all His fullness.

Have you ever said to yourself, I wish I knew God better. I wish I understood the mind of God more fully-how God looks at things, how He considers certain matters that perplex me and trouble me? Let me say this, dear friend, if you would know God better, all you have to do is to get better acquainted with Jesus Christ, for the Lord Jesus Christ has fully told or manifested God. God- let me say it thoughtfully-God is exactly like Jesus. There is no other God than the God who has been revealed in Christ. The holiness of God is the holiness seen in Jesus. The righteousness of God is the righteousness maintained by Jesus. The purity of God is the purity manifested in Jesus. The compassion of God is the compassion shown by Jesus. The love of God is the love of Jesus, and the hatred of God is the hatred seen in Jesus. Why, you say, does God hate anything? Did Jesus ever hate? Yes! With a perfect hatred God hates sin. He says, Do not this abominable thing that I hate (Jer 44:4). He hates all hypocrisy, all un-cleanness, all impurity, and Jesus hated all these things perfectly. You and I hate them imperfectly.

Then, the anger of God shows the indignation of Jesus. Was God ever angry? God is angry with the wicked every day (Psa 7:11). Why, you say, I thought God loved all men. He does love all men, but that does not hinder the fact that He becomes angry. You may love your own children, and yet you may get very angry at some of the wrong things they do. And so God, while He has shown His love by sending His only begotten Son into the world to die for sinners, is angry with the wicked every day. When God deals with unrepentant sinners, men will know that, it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb 10:31).

Was Jesus ever angry? He was. He was angry with the hypocrites. He was angry when He saw certain religious propagandists whose hearts were hard and cruel in their dealings with the poor and needy. Think of the words He used about the Scribes and Pharisees who devoured widows houses, and think of His indignation when He saw people so concerned about rites and ceremonies that they had no time for the things of God. Think of that time when He was in the synagogue where there was a poor little crooked woman who for eighteen years had been bowed down by that awful bondage. Jesus saw her there, and He was moved with compassion. When Jesus encountered a crippled man, He turned to the people and said, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? and they answered Him not a word. They were so jealous of their Sabbath and so unconcerned about the needs of humanity that Jesus turned to this poor woman and asked them, Ought not this woman, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day? (Luk 13:16). He gave the word and she was healed, and He looked round upon them in anger. The anger of Jesus is the anger of God.

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him (v. 18). He has fully manifested the character of God.

But now look at the first clause of this verse, No man hath seen God at any time. What does that mean? Do we not read again and again in the Old Testament of people who saw God? Is it not taken for granted that when Adam and Eve lived in the garden in all their purity and heard His voice as they walked in the garden in the cool of the day when He called unto Adam, that in some sense they saw God and hid themselves among the trees of the garden, their guilty consciences condemning them?

Abraham saw that mystic One of the three who came to him as he sat in the tent door, and he talked to Him as the Lord Jehovah. Moses said, Show me thy glory (Exo 33:18), and the Lord said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: and it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by (vv. 20-22). And we read that Moses saw God.

Ezekiel had visions of God. Again and again in the Old Testament we have these marvelous Scripture passages that tell of men beholding God, and yet it says here, No man hath seen God at any time. What does it mean? It means this: that all of these to which I referred were but theophanies. Men did not actually see God in His essential being, but He manifested Himself to them-as a man to Abraham, as an angel to Daniel, as a marvelous appearance to Ezekiel. No man has seen Deity at any time. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth (Joh 4:24), and a spirit is not visible to mortal eyes.

But what do these words mean, then: No man hath seen God at any time? If this was the only passage in which these words were found we should take it for granted that the meaning was that until Jesus Christ came into the world no man had seen God, but that when they saw Him they had seen God because He was the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father. But when we turn over to 1Jn 4:12, we find exactly the same words again, and these words were written many years after the Lord Jesus Christ had gone back to heaven. Here we read, No man hath seen God at any time. Now observe, these words were written when John was an old man, and again he says, No man hath seen God at any time. What, then, are we to gather from this? Simply that Deity as such is invisible.

When Jesus was here, men in seeing Him did not see Deity. What they did see was a man like themselves, as far as they could tell. But He was not a sinner as they were; He was the Holy One of God. But Deity was enshrined within that Man, for God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself (2Co 5:19). But men could only see His humanity. Now He is gone back to heaven and the word comes to us again, No man hath seen God at any time. God is still making Himself known to man, but He makes Himself known through those who walk in fellowship with Him. If you are walking in love, you are manifesting God.

It is a very solemn thing to realize that I as a believer am here in this world to make God known, by both life and testimony. Jesus did this fully and completely. The closer I walk with Him, the more God will be seen in me.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

bare: am 4030, ad 26, Joh 1:7, Joh 1:8, Joh 1:29-34, Joh 3:26-36, Joh 5:33-36, Mat 3:11, Mat 3:13-17, Mar 1:7, Luk 3:16

he was: Joh 1:1, Joh 1:2, Joh 1:30, Joh 8:58, Joh 17:5, Pro 8:22, Isa 9:6, Mic 5:2, Phi 2:6, Phi 2:7, Col 1:17, Heb 13:8, Rev 1:11, Rev 1:17, Rev 1:18, Rev 2:8

Reciprocal: Mal 3:1 – and he Mat 11:11 – he that Mat 21:25 – baptism Mat 25:4 – oil Mar 1:3 – General Mar 11:30 – General Mar 11:31 – Why Luk 1:77 – give Luk 3:18 – General Luk 20:5 – Why Joh 1:27 – who Joh 3:31 – is above Joh 13:19 – that I Act 13:24 – General Act 19:4 – John

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

5

Of whom I spake. (See Mat 3:11; Mar 1:7; Luk 3:16.) The word before is used twice, but it is from different Greek originals. The first means before in the sense of being previous; therefore it denotes being before in the sense of rank or importance. The second means previous in time, or in any succession of things. John’s reasoning is based on the priority of Christ. Since He existed before John did, he (John) felt that he ought to accord to Him the place of seniority. Christ was six months younger than John in the flesh, but existed before the beginning of the world spiritually.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

THE passage before us contains three great declarations about our Lord Jesus Christ. Each of the three is among the foundation principles of Christianity.

We are taught, firstly, that it is Christ alone who supplies all the spiritual wants of all believers. It is written that “of his fullness have we all received, and grace for grace.”

There is an infinite fullness in Jesus Christ. As Paul says, “It pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell.”-“In Him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (Col 1:19; Col 2:3.) There is laid up in Him, as in a treasury, a boundless supply of all that any sinner can need, either in time or eternity. The Spirit of Life is His special gift to the Church, and conveys from Him, as from a great root, sap and vigor to all the believing branches. He is rich in mercy, grace, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. Out of Christ’s fullness, all believers in every age of the world, have been supplied. They did not clearly understand the fountain from which their supplies flowed, in Old Testament times. The Old Testament saints only saw Christ afar off, and not face to face. But from Abel downwards, all saved souls have received all they have had from Jesus Christ alone. Every saint in glory will at last acknowledge that he is Christ’s debtor for all he is. Jesus will prove to have been all in all.

We are taught, secondly, the vast superiority of Christ to Moses, and of the Gospel to the Law. It is written that “the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”

Moses was employed by God “as a servant,” to convey to Israel the moral and ceremonial law. (Heb 3:5.) As a servant, he was faithful to Him who appointed him, but he was only a servant. The moral law, which he brought down from Mount Sinai, was holy, and just, and good. But it could not justify. It had no healing power. It could wound, but it could not bind up. It “worked wrath.” (Rom 4:15.) It pronounced a curse against any imperfect obedience.-The ceremonial law, which he was commanded to impose on Israel, was full of deep meaning and typical instruction. Its ordinances and ceremonies made it an excellent schoolmaster to guide men toward Christ. (Gal 3:24.) But the ceremonial law was only a schoolmaster. It could not make him that kept it perfect, as pertaining to the conscience. (Heb 9:9.) It laid a grievous yoke on men’s hearts, which they were not able to bear. It was a ministration of death and condemnation. (2Co 3:7-9.) The light which men got from Moses and the law was at best only starlight compared to noon-day.

Christ, on the other hand, came into the world “as a Son,” with the keys of God’s treasury of grace and truth entirely in His hands. (Heb 3:6.) Grace came by Him, when He made fully known God’s gracious plan of salvation, by faith in His own blood, and opened the fountain of mercy to all the world.-Truth came by Him, when He fulfilled in His own Person the types of the Old Testament, and revealed Himself as the true Sacrifice, the true mercy-seat, and the true Priest. No doubt there was much of “grace and truth” under the law of Moses. But the whole of God’s grace, and the whole truth about redemption, were never known until Jesus came into the world, and died for sinners.

We are taught, thirdly, that it is Christ alone who has revealed God the Father to man. It is written that “no man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

The eye of mortal man has never beheld God the Father. No man could bear the sight. Even to Moses it was said, “Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.” (Exo 33:20.) Yet all that mortal man is capable of knowing about God the Father is fully revealed to us by God the Son. He, who was in the bosom of the Father from all eternity, has been pleased to take our nature upon Him, and to exhibit to us in the form of man, all that our minds can comprehend of the Father’s perfections. In Christ’s words, and deeds, and life, and death, we learn as much concerning God the Father as our feeble minds can at present bear. His perfect wisdom,-His almighty power,-His unspeakable love to sinners,-His incomparable holiness,-His hatred of sin, could never be represented to our eyes more clearly than we see them in Christ’s life and death. In truth, “God was manifest in the flesh,” when the Word took on Him a body. “He was the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of His person.” He says Himself, “I and my Father are one.” “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” “In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col 2:9.) These are deep and mysterious things. But they are true. (1Ti 3:16; Heb 1:3; Joh 10:30; Joh 14:9.)

And now, after reading this passage, can we ever give too much honor to Christ? Can we ever think too highly of Him? Let us banish the unworthy thought from our minds forever. Let us learn to exalt Him more in our hearts, and to rest more confidingly the whole weight of our souls in His hands. Men may easily fall into error about the three Persons in the holy Trinity if they do not carefully adhere to the teaching of Scripture. But no man ever errs on the side of giving too much honor to God the Son. Christ is the meeting-point between the Trinity and the sinner’s soul. “He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father which sent Him.” (Joh 5:23.)

==================

Notes-

v15.-[John bare witness….cried.] The time at which John the Baptist bore this testimony is not specified. We have not yet come to the historic part of John’s Gospel, properly speaking. We are still in the introductory preface. It seems therefore probable, as Lightfoot says, that the sentence before us describes the habitual character of John’s testimony to Christ. He was throughout his ministry, continually proclaiming Christ’s greatness and superiority to himself, both in nature and dignity.

[Cried.] The Greek word so rendered, implies a very loud cry, like that of one making a proclamation. Parkhurst defines it in this place as “speaking out very openly.”

[He that cometh after me….preferred before….was before me.] This sentence has caused much discussion and some difference of opinion. The Greek words literally translated would be, “He that cometh after me has become, or been made, in front of me,-for he was first of me.” I feel no doubt that our English version gives the correct meaning of the sentence.-Hammond’s note on the text is very good.

The first “before,” signifies before in place, position, or dignity. The Greek adverb so rendered, is used forty-nine times in the New Testament, but never once in the sense of “before in point of time or age.”

The second “before,” signifies before in point of time or existence. “He was existing before me, at the time when I was not.” The expression is certainly remarkable and uncommon, but there is another exactly like it in this Gospel, “It hated me before it hated you,” where the literal rendering would be, “it hated me first of you.”

The sentence “he was before me,” is a distinct statement of Christ’s pre-existence. He was born at least six months after John the Baptist, and was therefore younger in age than John. Yet John says, “He was before me. He was existing when I was born.” If he had meant only, that our Lord was a more honourable person than himself, he would surely have said, “He is before me.”

The greatness of John the Baptist’s spiritual knowledge appears in this expression. He understood the doctrine of Christ’s pre-existence. Christians are apt to think far too slightingly of John the Baptist’s attainments, and the depths of his teaching.

v16.-[Of His fulness have all we received.] This sentence means, “all we who believe on Jesus, have received an abundant supply of all that our souls need out of the full store that resides in Him for His people. It is from Christ and Christ alone, that all our spiritual wants have been supplied.”

Waterland, in his book on the Trinity, calls particular attention to this expression. He thinks that it was specially used with a view to the strange doctrines of the Gnostics in general, and the Cerinthians in particular, whose heresies arose before John’s Gospel was written. They seem to have held that there was a certain fulness or plenitude of the Deity, into which only certain spiritual men, including themselves, were to be received, and from which others who were less spiritual, though they had grace, were to be excluded. “John,” says Waterland, “here asserts, that all Christians, equally and indifferently, all believers at large, have received of the plenitude or fulness of the divine Word, and that not sparingly, but in the largest measure, even grace upon grace.”

Melancthon on this verse, calls particular attention to the word “all.” He observes that it embraces the whole Church of God, from Adam downwards. All who have been saved have received out of Christ’s fulness, and all other sources of fulness are distinctly excluded.

[Grace for grace.] This expression is very peculiar, and has caused much difference of opinion among commentators.

1. Some think it means “the new grace of the Gospel in place of, or instead of, the old grace of the law.” This is the view of Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius, Rupertus, Lyranus, Bucer, Beza, Scaliger, De Dieu, Calovius, Jansenius, Lampe, and Quesnel.

2. Some think that it means “grace, on account of God’s grace or favour, and specially His favour towards His Son.” This is the view of Zwingle, Melancthon, Chemnitius, Flacius, Rollock, Grotius, Camerarius, Tarnovius, Toletus, Barradius, Cartwright, and Cornelius Lapide.

3. Some think that it means “grace on account of, or in return for, the grace of faith that is in us.” This is the view of Augustine, Gomarus, and Beda.

4. Some think that it means “grace answering to, or proportioned to, the grace that is in Christ.” This is the view of Calvin, Leigh, and Bridge.

5. Some think that it means “grace for the propagation of grace.” This is the view of Lightfoot.

6. Some think that it means “accumulated grace, abundant grace, grace upon grace.” This is the view of Schleusner, Winer, Bucer, Pellican, Musculus, Gualter, Poole, Nifanius, Pearce, Burkitt, Doddridge, Bengel, A. Clarke, Tittman, Olshausen, Barnes, and Alford.

Brentius, Bullinger, Aretius, Jansenius, Hutcheson, Gill, Scott, and Henry, give several views, but signify their adhesion to no one in particular.

On the whole, I am inclined to think that the sixth and last is the correct view. I admit fully that the Greek preposition, here rendered ”for,” is only found in three senses in the Greek Testament,- viz.: “In the room or place of,” (Mat 2:22,) “In return for,” (Rom 12:17,) and “On account of,” (Act 12:23; Eph 5:31.) In composition it also signifies “opposition,” but with that we have nothing to do here. In the present case I think the meaning is “grace in the place of grace, constant, fresh, abundant supplies of new grace, to take the place of old grace, and therefore unfailing, abundant grace, continually filling up and supplying all our need.”

v17.-[For the law was given, &c.] This verse seems intended to show the inferiority of the law to the Gospel. It does so by putting in strong contrast the leading characteristics of the Old and New dispensations,-the religion which began with Moses, and the religion which began with Christ.

By Moses was given the law,-the moral law, full of high and holy demands, and of stern threatenings against disobedience;-the ceremonial law, full of burdensome sacrifices, ordinances, and ceremonies, which never healed the worshipper’s conscience, and at best were only shadows of good things to come.

By Christ, on the other hand, came grace and truth,-grace by the full manifestation of God’s plan of salvation, and the offer of complete pardon to every soul that believes on Jesus,-and truth, by the unveiled exhibition of Christ Himself, as the true sacrifice, the true Priest, and the true atonement for sin.

Augustine, on this verse, says, “The law threatened, not helped; commanded, not healed; showed, not took away, our feebleness. But it made ready for the Physician, who was to come with grace and truth.”

v18.-[No man hath seen God, &c.] This verse seems intended to show the infinite personal superiority of Christ to Moses, or to any other saint that ever lived.

No man hath ever seen God the Father; neither Abraham nor Moses, nor Joshua, nor David, nor Isaiah, nor Daniel. All these, however holy and good men, were still only men, and quite incapable of beholding God face to face, from very weakness. What they knew of God the Father, they knew only by report, or by special revelation, vouchsafed to them from time to time. They were but servants, and “The servant knoweth not what his lord doeth.” (Joh 15:15.)

Christ on the other hand, is the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father. He is one who is most intimately united from all eternity to God the Father, and is equal to Him in all things. He, during the time of His earthly ministry here, fully showed to man all that man can bear to know concerning His Father. He has revealed His Father’s wisdom, and holiness, and compassion, and power, and hatred of sin, and love of sinners, in the fullest possible way. He has brought into clear light the great mystery how God the Father can be just, and yet justify the ungodly. The knowledge of the Father which a man derived from the teaching of Moses, is as different from that derived from the teaching of Christ, as twilight is different from noon-day.

We must carefully remember that none of the appearances of God to man, described in the Old Testament, were the appearances of God the Father. He whom Abraham, and Jacob, and Moses, and Joshua, and Isaiah, and Daniel saw, was not the First Person in the Trinity, but the Second.

The speculations of some commentators on the sentence now before us, as to whether any created being, angel or spirit, has ever seen God the Father, are, to say the least, unprofitable. The sentence before us speaks of man, being written for man’s use.

The expression, “Which is in the bosom of the Father,” is doubtless a figurative one, mercifully accommodated to man’s capacity. As one who lies in the bosom of another is fairly supposed to be most intimate with him, to know all his secrets, and possess all his affections, so is it, we are to understand, in the union of the Father and the Son. It is more close than man’s mind can conceive.

The Greek word rendered “declared,” means literally, “hath expounded.” It is the root of the words, which are well known among literary students of the Bible, “exegesis and exegetical.” The idea is that of giving a full and particular explanation. (Act 15:14.) Whether the “Declaring of God the Father,” here described, is to be confined to Christ’s oral teaching about the Father, or whether it means also that Christ has in His Person given a visible representation of many of the Father’s attributes, is a doubtful point. Perhaps both ideas are included in the expression.

In leaving this passage, I must say something about the disputed question, To whom do the three verses beginning, “And of his fulness,” belong? Are they the words of John the Baptist, and a part of his testimony? Or are they the words of John the Gospel-writer, and an explanatory comment of his, such as we occasionally find in his Gospel?-There is something to be said on both sides.

(a.) Some think that these three verses were spoken by John the Baptist, because of the awkwardness and abruptness with which his testimony ends upon the other theory,-because they run on harmoniously with the fifteenth verse,-and because there is nothing in them which we might not reasonably expect John the Baptist to say.

This is the opinion of Origen, Athanasius, Basil, Cyprian, Augustine, Theophylact, Rupertus, Melancthon, Calvin, Zwingle, Erasmus, Chemnitius, Gualter, Musculus, Bucer, Flacius, Buillinger, Pellican, Toletus, Gomarus, Nifanius, Rollock, Poole, Burkitt, Hutcheson, Bengel, and Cartwright.

(b.) Others think, that the three verses are the comment of John the Gospel-writer, arising out of John’s testimony about Christ’s pre-existence, and out of the expression, Grace and truth, in the fourteenth verse.-They regard the verses as an exposition of the expression, “Full of grace and truth.”-They question whether the language is such as would have been used by John the Baptist,-whether he would have said “all we,” after just saying “me,”-whether he would have used the word “fulness,”-whether he would, at so early a period, have contrasted the religion of Moses and of Christ,-and whether he would have so openly declared Christ to be the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father.-Finally, they think that if these were John the Baptist’s words, the Gospel would not have begun again in the nineteenth verse, “This is the record of John.”

This is the opinion of Cyril, Chrysostom, Euthymius, Beda, Lyranus, Brentius, Beza, Ferus, Grotius, Aretius, Barradius, Maldonatus, Cornelius Lapide, Jansenius, Lightfoot, Arrowsmith, Gill, Doddridge, Lampe, Pearce, Henry, Tittman, A. Clarke, Barnes, Olshausen, Alford, and Wordsworth,-Baxter and Scott decline any decided opinion on the point, and Whitby says nothing about it.

The arguments on either side are so nicely balanced, and the names on either side are so weighty, that I venture an opinion with much diffidence. But on the whole, I am inclined to think that the three verses are not the words of John the Baptist, but of John the Evangelist.-The remarkable style of the first eighteen verses of this chapter makes the abruptness and brevity of the testimony which John the Baptist bears, upon this theory, appear to me not strange.-And the connection between the three verses, and the words “full of grace and truth” in the fourteenth verse, appears to me much more marked and distinct, than the connection between John’s testimony, and the words “of his fulness all we have received.”

Happily the point is one which involves no serious question, and is therefore one on which Christians may be content to differ, if they cannot convince one another.

Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

Joh 1:15. John beareth witness concerning him, and hath cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me has become before me, because he was before me. We have seen that Joh 1:14 is parallel to Joh 1:1-5. In like manner this verse is parallel to Joh 1:6-8; but it is also an advance upon those verses, containing the Baptists witness to the Personal Word become flesh, not to the Word as the general Light of men.Beareth witness,not bare witness (Joh 1:32). It is as if the Evangelist would say, Of this John is the witness; his testimony abides, unchanging, always present. The same thought comes out more distinctly still in the verb which follows, hath cried. (The usual translation crieth seems on various grounds less probable.) The loud cry of the faithful witness has come down through all the years; we seem to hear its echoes still. The Baptist clearly refers to witness which he had borne after Jesus appeared; hence the words, This was he.It is unusually difficult to find a rendering that will fully convey the meaning of this verse. As the word before occurs in two members of the verse, the English reader inevitably considers the contrast to be between is preferred (or is become) and he was. In reality, before here answers to two different words. A literal translation will show at once the meaning and the difficulty of finding an easy expression of the meaning: He that cometh behind me has become in front of me, because He was before me. Jesus came after or behind John, as coming later in His manifestation to the world. As the later in time, it might have been expected that He would take rank alter him who was His predecessor; but He has been advanced before John; the reason of this is given in Johns declaration, He was before me. That which these words directly affirm is priority of time; but, as in respect of human birth this could not be affirmed of Jesus, the words bring into view a preexistence so transcendent as of itself to assert an infinite superiority to every other man. This anterior dignity explains why He that followed John has come to be before him. The herald came first, to prepare the way for the King; when the King arrives, the herald retires from view.The last words of the verse require further notice. They are not fully represented by before me, as if they contained nothing beyond a comparison of Jesus with the Baptist. The former word is absolute, He was first; the other word is added because a comparison is needed, first in regard of me. We might almost paraphrase the very remarkable combination thus: First, and (by consequence) before me.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Here we have John Baptist’s first testimony concerning Christ the promised Messiah: and it consists of four parts.

1. John prefers Christ before himself, as being surpassingly above himself. He that cometh after me is preferred before me, that is, in the dignity of his person, and in the eminency of his office, as being the eternal God. Now amongst them that were born of women, there was not a greater than John the Baptist; if Christ then was greater than John, it was in regard of his being God. He is therefore preferred before him, because he was before him, as being God from all eternity.

Learn hence, That the dignity and eternity of Christ;s person as God, sets him up above all his ministers; yea, above all creatures, how excellent soever. He that cometh after me in time, is preferred before me in dignity; for he was before me, even from all eternity.

2. John prefers Christ before all believers, in point of fulness and sufficiency of divine grace: Of his fulness do they receive. They have their failings, Christ has his fulness; theirs is the fulness of a vessel, his is the fulness of a fountain: their fulness is derivative, his fulness is original, yet also ministerial, on purpose in him to give out to us, that we may receive grace for grace; that is, grace answerable for kind and quality, though not for measure and degree. As a child in generation receives from its parent member for member, or as the paper in the printing-press receives letter for letter, and the wax under the seal receives print for print; so in the work of regeneration, whatever grace is in Christ, there is the like for kind stamped upon the Christian;s soul. All the members of Christ being made plentiful partakers of his spiritual endowments.

Learn hence, That all fulness of grace, by way of supply for believers, is treasured up in Christ, and communicated by him, as their wants and necessities do require: his fulness is inexhaustible, it can never be drawn low, much less drawn dry: Of his fulness do we receive grace for grace: that is, grace freely, grace plentifully; God grant that none of us may receive the grace of Christ in vain.

John prefers Christ before Moses, whom the Jews doted so much upon. The law was given by Moses, not as the author, but as the dispenser of it. Moses was God’s minister, by whom the law which reveals wrath, was given to the Jews; but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Grace, in opposition to the condemnatory curse and sentence of the law; and truth, in opposition to the types, shadows, and ceremonies of the legal administration.

Learn hence, That all grace for the remission of sin, and for performace of duty, is given from Christ, the Fountain of grace: Grace came by Jesus Christ. The grace of pardon and reconciliation; the grace of holiness and sanctification; the grace of love and adoption; even all that grace that fits us for service here, and glory hereafter. Christ is both the Dispenser and the Author of it. Grace came by Jesus Christ.

Again, 4. John the Baptist here Joh 1:18 doth not only prefer Christ before himself, before Moses, before all believers, but even before all persons whatsoever, in point of knowing and revealing the mind of God. No man hath seen God at any time; that is, no mere man hath ever seen God in his essence, whilst he was in this mortal state. Here God’s invisibility is asserted: next Christ’s intimacy with the Father, is declared.

The only-begotten Son, that is in the bosom of the Father. This expression implies three things.

1. Unity of natures; the bosom is the child’s place, who is part of ourselves.

2. Dearness of affection. None lie in the bosom, but the person that is dear to us. A bosom friend is the dearest of friends.

3. It implies communication of secrets. Christ’s lying in his Father’s bosom intimates his being conscious to all his Father’s secrets, to know all his counsels, and to understand his whole will and pleasure.

Now as Christ’s lying in his Father’s bosom implies unity of nature, it teaches us to give the same worship to Christ which we give to God the Father, because he is of the same nature with the Father. As it implies dearness of affection betwixt the Father and the Son, it teaches us to place our chief love upon Christ the Son, because God the Father doth so: he, who is the Son of God’s love, should be the object of our love; as God hath an bosom for Christ, so should we have also; the noblest object challenges the highest affection.

Again, as Christ’s lying in the Father’s bosom implies the knowlege of his mind and will, it teaches us to apply ourselves to Christ, to his word and Spirit, for illumination. Whither should we go for instruction, but to this great Prophet; for direction, but to this wonderful Counselor: We can never be made wise unto salvation, if Christ, the wisdom of the Father, doth not make us so.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Joh 1:15. John bare witness of him, saying, This is he, &c. This might probably happen at the time when Jesus made his first appearance among those that came to be baptized by John; when, at his offering to receive his baptism, though John before had been a stranger to him, and knew him not by any personal acquaintance with him, yet, by some powerful impression on his mind, he presently discerned that this was He whom he before had taught the people to expect, and of whose person he had given them so high a character. For it was plainly from his knowledge of him, that John at first would have declined baptizing him as an honour of which he looked upon himself to be unworthy. Nor is it to be doubted, that when first he knew the person, of whose appearance he had raised such expectations by his preaching, he would immediately be ready to acquaint his hearers, that this was he who was intended by him; which they themselves might have been ready to conclude from the uncommon veneration and respect with which the Baptist treated him, who had been always used to treat men with the greatest plainness. He that cometh after me is preferred before me Namely, by God. Erasmus supposes, that John here refers to the honours which he knew had been paid to Jesus in his infancy, by the angel who announced his birth to the shepherds; by the shepherds themselves; by the eastern sages; by Simeon and Anna; honours which could not be paralleled by any thing which had happened to him. But the words seem to have a more extensive meaning, comprehending the superior dignity of Christs nature, office, commission, and exaltation, as Mediator. See Mat 3:11, the passage here referred to. For he was before me It is fit that Jesus should be raised above me, because he is a person superior in nature to me. For though he was born after me, he existed before me. This must undoubtedly refer to the state of glory in which Christ existed before his incarnation, of which the Baptist speaks so plainly, Joh 3:31. See Doddridge and Macknight.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

[See also the “General Considerations on the Prologue” in the comments of Joh 1:18.]

Ver. 15. John bears witness of him, and cries, saying:This is he of whom I spoke when I said, He who comes after me hath preceded me, because he was before me.

The present, bears witness is ordinarily explained by the permanent value of this testimony; but perhaps it is due rather to the fact that the author transports himself in a life-like way backward to the moment when he heard this mysterious saying coming from such lips; he seems to himself to hear it still. The perfect is always used in Greek in the sense of the present: he cries; this declaration was made with the solemnity of an official proclamation.

According to the reading of B. C. and Origen, we must, in order to give sense to these words: it was he who spake, put them in a parenthesis, as Westcott and Hort do, and thus ascribe to the evangelist the most inept of repetitions. See where these critics lead us by the critical system which they have once for all adopted! The reading of is equally inadmissible. According to Joh 1:30, the forerunner uttered this saying on the next day after the deputation of the Sanhedrim had officially presented to him the question relating to his mission. After having expressly declined the honor of being the Messiah in the presence of these delegates, he had added in mysterious words, that that personage was already present and was immediately to succeed him, although in reality He had been already present before him (Joh 1:26-27).

The next day, he made this declaration again before the people, but this time designating Jesus positively as the one of whom he had spoken on the preceding day, and adding an explanation with reference to that previous existence which he attributed to Him as compared with himself (Joh 1:30). This second more full declaration the evangelist quotes in Joh 1:15; because it was the first which referred personally and intelligibly to Jesus,Jesus not being present on the previous day. It may be asked why there is this slight difference between the cited declaration and that of Joh 1:15, that there John the Baptist says , this is he, while, in Joh 1:15, the evangelist makes him say: , this was he. The first form seems more in harmony with the immediate presence of the one to whom the testimony refers: This is he of whom I was saying yesterday…You see him there! This form perfectly suits the original testimony. The form: This was, might have been also suitable in the Baptist’s mouth. It only called up the fact that it was He of whom he had thought on the preceding day, when speaking as he had done. But it proceeds rather from the evangelist; for it is natural from the standpoint more remote from the fact, at which he now is.

The testimony here reproduced by the apostle has a paradoxical cast in harmony with the original character of John the Baptist: He who follows me has preceded me. There was something in the apparent contradiction of these two verbs to excite the attention and stimulate the mental activity of those to whom the saying was addressed. Many interpreters, as if making a point of depriving this saying of what in fact gives it its point, have assigned to the word has preceded me the sense of has surpassed me (Chrysostom, Tholuck, Olshausen, de Wette, Lucke, Luthardt). But what is there surprising in the fact that he who comes afterward should be superior to the one who goes before him? Is it not so in ordinary life? Does not the herald precede the sovereign? A platitude, therefore, is ascribed to John the Baptist. Hofmann has felt this. And instead of referring one of these verbs to time and the other to dignity, he applies them both to dignity, in this sense: He who was at first inferior to me (who went behind me as my disciple) has become my superior (goes before me now as my master).

But Jesus was never in the position of a disciple with relation to John, and no more did He become his master. Besides, the words and would have presented themselves much more naturally for the expression of this idea. Let us remember that the evangelist has as his aim to prove by the testimony of the forerunner the dignity of the Logos incarnate, which is attributed to Jesus; now it is precisely thetemporal sense which is adapted to this aim, and if one of the two prepositions refers to time, the other must refer to it also: for the apparent contradiction of the two terms is what gives this saying all its meaning. He who is my successor preceded me (Luther, Meyer, Baumlein, Weiss, Keil, etc.). My successor: as to the Messianic work; Jesus appeared on the stage after John. And yet He was before Him. How so? By His presence and activity in the whole period of the Old Covenant. The Christ really preceded His forerunner in the world; comp. Joh 12:41; 1Co 10:4, and the passage in Malachi (Joh 3:1), where John the Baptist found this idea, as we shall see. The perfect does not mean existed, but was there (in fact); comp. Joh 6:25.

On repeating this enigmatical word on the next day, John added to it the phrase which should give a glimpse of the solution of the enigma: because he was before me, or more literally, my first. Here also, many refer the word first to superiority of rank, not of time, (Chrysostom, Beza, Calvin, Hofmann, Luthardt); but the imperfect wasis opposed to this sense; is would have been necessary. Objection is made to the tautology between this proposition and the preceding one, if both refer to time. But it is forgotten that there is a difference between , which places us on the ground of history: was there, and , was, which refers to the essence of the Logos, to the eternal order to which He by nature belongs. He did not pass from nothingness into being, like His forerunner.

If He preceded the latter on the field of history, it was because, in reality, He belonged to an order of things superior to that of time. Many interpreters (Meyer, Baumlein), who take the word first in the same sense as ourselves, say that the superlative is put here for the comparative , anterior to, and they cite as an example Joh 15:18. But John avoids the comparative because it would refer to the relation of two persons, who both belonged to the same order of things, and consequently might be compared with each other. Now it is not so in this case; and any comparison is impossible. Jesus is not only anterior to John; He is, speaking absolutely, first with relation to him and to everything that is in time. Hence the expression: my first. And such, indeed, is also the meaning in Joh 15:18. For Jesus was not merely persecuted before the disciples, as their equal; He it is who in them is the real object of the persecution. This last clause contains, accordingly, the solution of the apparent contradiction presented by the two preceding clauses. It was possible for Him to be the predecessor of His forerunner, since He appertains to the eternal order.

It is alleged that John the Baptist cannot have uttered such a saying, which already implies knowledge of the divinity of the Messiah, a knowledge which was developed only afterwards in the Church. It is the evangelist, then, who puts it into his mouth (Strauss, Weiss, de Wette), or who, at least, modifies in this way some expression which he had heard from his mouth, and in which the forerunner proclaimed the superior dignity of Jesus (Weiss). On the other hand, Lucke, Meyer, Bruckner and others, defend the historical accuracy of this saying. And, in fact, the pre-existence of the Messiah already forms a part of the teaching of the Old Testament; comp. Isa 9:5; Mic 5:1; Dan 7:13-14. Bertholdt, in hisChristologia Judaeorum, p. 131, has demonstrated the presence of this idea in the Rabbinical writings. It is found in the book of Enoch and in the fourth book of Esdras (Schurer, Lehrb. der N. T. Gesch., 29, 3).

Far from having borrowed it from the Christians, the Jewish theology turned away from it rather, in its struggle with Christianity (Schurer, ibid.). If this saying were, either in whole or in part, a composition of the evangelist, it would be sufficient for him to place it in his Prologue; he would not allow himself to return to it again twice in the course of the following narrative, in order to point out the historical situation in which John had uttered it, fixing exactly the place, the moment, the occasion (Joh 1:26-27; Joh 1:30), and marking the progress in its terms from one occasion to the other. Besides, the original and enigmatical form in which it is presented would be enough to guarantee its authenticity. In this respect, it offers a full analogy to the indisputably authentic saying of the forerunner in Joh 3:30. Let us not forget that there was in the Old Testament a passage which, more than any other, contained, as it were, the programme of John the Baptist’s mission, a passage which he must have read again and again, and which was the text of the declaration which occupies our attention. It is Mal 3:1 : Behold, I send my messenger before me, and he prepares my way. If the Messiah sends His messenger before Him, that is, in order Himself soon to follow him, and if this sending consists in a birth, it is clear that the Messiah must necessarily exist before His successor. Simple common sense forces upon us this conclusion, which John the Baptist well knew how to draw. Finally, even independently of all this, the forerunner had received special revelations, instructions relative to his mission: He who sent me to baptize with water, he said to me; thus he expresses himself, alluding to a direct communication, a sort of theophany which had been granted to him (Joh 1:33). It is impossible, therefore, that, with the vision of the baptism to crown this special prophetic preparation, he should not have had his eyes open to understand fully the superior dignity of the One whom God Himself saluted with the title of His well-beloved Son.

The evangelist has made us hear the testimony of the immediate witnesses of the life of Christ (Joh 1:14), then, that of the herald sent to prepare the way for Him (Joh 1:15); it only remains for him to formulate that which comes forth from the experience of the whole Church.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

Verse 15

He was before me; he existed before me.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

1:15 {8} John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh {b} after me is preferred {c} before me: for he was before me.

(8) John is a faithful witness of the excellency of Christ.

(b) That is, “He before whom I am sent to prepare him the way”: so that these words refer to the time of his calling, and not of his age, for John was six months older than Christ.

(c) This sentence has in it a turning of the reason as we call it, as one would say, a setting of that first which should be last, and that last which should be first: for in plain speech it is this, “He that comes after me, is better than I am, for he was before me.” We find a similar turning of the reason in Lu 7:47 : “Many sins are forgiven her, because she loved much”, which is this much to say, “She loved much, because many sins are forgiven her.”

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

John the Baptist was another witness beside John the Apostle and the other disciples of Jesus who testified to Jesus’ person.

"John the Baptist is one of six persons named in the Gospel of John who gave witness that Jesus Is God. The others are Nathanael (Joh 1:49), Peter (Joh 6:69), the blind man who was healed (Joh 9:35-38), Martha (Joh 11:27), and Thomas (Joh 20:28). If you add our Lord Himself (Joh 5:25; Joh 10:36), then you have seven clear witnesses." [Note: Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, 1:287.]

Even though John the Baptist was slightly older and began his ministry before Jesus, He acknowledged Jesus’ superiority to himself.

"In a society where age and precedence bestowed peculiar honour, that might have been taken by superficial observers to mean John the Baptist was greater than Jesus." [Note: Carson, p. 131.]

Jesus’ superiority rested in His preexistence with the Father and therefore His deity. John the Baptist’s witness to Jesus’ identity was important to the writer of this Gospel (cf. Joh 1:6-8; Joh 1:19-36).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Joh 1:15-34

Chapter 3

THE BAPTISTS TESTIMONY.

There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light…. John beareth witness of Him, and crieth, saying, This was He of whom I said, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for He was before me. For of His fulness we all received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. And this is the witness of John, when the Jews sent unto him from Jerusalem priests and Levites to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; and he confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not. Art thou the prophet? And he answered, No. They said therefore unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said Isaiah the prophet. And they had been sent from the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why then baptizest thou, if thou art not the Christ, neither Elijah, neither the prophet? John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: in the midst of you standeth One whom ye know not, even He that cometh after me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose. These things were done in Bethany beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world! This is He of whom I said, After me cometh a Man which is preferred before me: for He was before me. And I knew Him not; but that He should be made manifest to Israel, for this cause came I baptizing with water. And John bare witness, saying, I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven; and it abode upon Him. And I knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, He said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon Him, the same is He that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.- Joh 1:6-8; Joh 1:15-34.

In proceeding to show how the Incarnate Word manifested Himself among men, and how this manifestation was received, John naturally speaks first of all of the Baptist. There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for witness … that all might believe through him. The Evangelist himself had been one of the Baptists disciples, and had been led to Christ by his testimony. And to many besides, the Baptist was the true forerunner of the Messiah. He was the first to recognise and proclaim the present King. John had come under the Baptists influence at the most impressible time of his life, while his character was being formed and his ideas of religion taking shape; and his teachers testimony to the dignity of Jesus had left an indelible print upon his spirit. While his memory retained anything it could not let slip what his first teacher had said of Him who became his Teacher and his Lord. While, therefore, the other Evangelists give us striking pictures of the Baptists appearance, habits, and style of preaching, and show us the connection of his work with that of Jesus, John glances very slightly at these matters, but dwells with emphasis and iteration on the testimony which the Baptist bore to the Messiahship of Jesus.

To us, at this time of day, it may seem of little importance what the Baptist thought or said of Jesus. We may sympathise rather with the words of the Lord Himself, who, in allusion to this witness, said, I receive not testimony from man. But it is plain that, at any rate from a Jewish point of view, the witness of John was most important. The people universally accepted John as a prophet, and they could scarcely think him mistaken in the chief article of his mission. In point of fact, many of the most faithful adherents of Jesus became such through the influence of John; and those who declined to accept Jesus were always staggered by Johns explicit indication of Him as the Christ. The Jews had not only the predictions of prophets long since dead, and descriptions of the Christ which they could perversely misconstrue; they had not merely pictures of their Messiah by which they might identify Jesus as the Christ, but of which it was also quite possible for them to deny the likeness; but they had a living contemporary, whom they themselves acknowledged to be a prophet, pointing out to them another living contemporary as the Christ. That even such a testimony was to a large extent disregarded shows how much more the inclination to believe has to do with our faith than any external proofs.

But even to us the testimony of a man like John is not without importance. He was, as our Lord bore witness, a burning and a shining light. He was one of those men who give new thoughts to their generation, and help men to see clearly what otherwise they might only dimly have seen. He was in a position to know Jesus well. He was His cousin; he had known Him from His childhood. He was also in a position to know what was involved in being the Messiah. By the very circumstance that he himself had been mistaken for the Messiah, he was driven to define to his own mind the distinctive and characteristic marks of the Messiah. Nothing could so have led him to apprehend the difference between himself and Jesus. More and more clearly must he have seen that he was not that light, but was sent to bear witness of that light. Thus he was prepared to receive with understanding the sign (Joh 1:33) which gave him something more than his own personal surmises to go upon in declaring Jesus to the world as the Messiah. If there is any mans testimony we may accept about our Lord it is that of the Baptist, who, from his close contact with the most profligate and with the most spiritual of the people, saw what they needed, and saw in Jesus power to give it; the business of whose life it was to make Him out, and to arrive at certain information regarding Him; a man whose own elevation and force of character made many fancy he was the Messiah, but who hastened to disabuse their minds of such an idea, because his very elevation gave him capacity to see how infinitely above him the true Christ was. Seen from the low ground the star may seem close to the top of the mountain; seen from the mountain-top it is recognised as infinitely above it. John was on the mountain-top.

Of Johns person and work nothing need here be said save what serves to throw light on his witness to Christ. Going from the comfortable home and well-provided life and fair prospects of a priests family, he went to the houseless wilderness, and adopted the meagre, comfortless life of an ascetic; not from any necessity, but because he felt that to entangle himself with the affairs of the world would be to blind him to its vices, and to silence his remonstrance, if not to implicate him in its guilt. Like thousands besides in all ages of the worlds history, he felt compelled to seek solitude, to subdue the flesh, to meditate undisturbed on things Divine, and discover for himself and for others some better way than religious routine and the good wine of Mosaic morality turned to the vinegar of Pharisaism. Like the Nazarites of the earlier times of his country, like the old prophets, with whose indignation and deep regret at the national vices he was in perfect sympathy, he left the world, gave up all the usual prospects and ways of life, and betook himself to a life of prayer, and thought, and self-discipline in the wilderness. When first he went there, he could only dimly know what lay before him; but he gathered a few friends of like disposition around him, and, as we learn, taught them to pray. He formed in the wilderness a new Israel, a little company of praying souls, who spent their time in considering the needs of their fellow-countrymen, and in interceding with God for them, and who were content to let the pleasures and excitements of the world pass by while they longed for and prepared themselves to meet the great Deliverer.

This adoption of the rle of the ancient prophets, this resuscitation of their long-forgotten function of mourning before God for the peoples sin, and addressing the nation authoritatively as Gods voice, was outwardly shown by his assumption of the prophets dress. The rough skin for a cloak; the long, uncared-for hair; the wiry, weather-beaten frame; the lofty, calm, penetrating eye, were all eloquent as his lips. His whole appearance and habits certified his claim to be the voice of one crying in the wilderness, and gave him authority with the people. Slightly altering what has been said of a great modern, we may much more truly say of the Baptist,-

He took the suffering human race, He read each wound, each weakness clear: He struck his finger on the place, And said, Thou ailest here, and here. He looked on (Isrels) dying hour Of fitful dreams and feverish power, And said, The end is everywhere,(Christ) still has truth, take refuge there.

He was listened to. It is so always, in our own day as in others; the men who are unworldly and have the good of their country or of any class of men at heart, the men who are saintly and of few desires, these are listened to as the commissioned messengers of heaven. It is to these men we look as the salt of the earth, who preserve us still from the corrupting, disintegrating influence of doubt. To these men, no matter how different they be from us in creed, we are forced to listen, because the Holy Spirit, wherever He is, is the Spirit of God; and all men instinctively acknowledge that those who are themselves in the kingdom of God have authority to summon others into it, and that those who are themselves unworldly have alone a right to dictate to worldly men. There is no power on earth like the power of a holy, consecrated life, because he who is leading such a life is already above the world, and belongs to a higher kingdom. There is hope for our country, or for any country, when its young men have something of Johns spirit; when they school the body until it becomes the ready instrument of a high and spiritual intention, fearless of hardship; when by sympathy with Gods purposes they apprehend what is most needed by men, and are able to detect the weaknesses and vices of society, and to bear the burden of their time.

But the Baptists equipment for the most responsible office of proclaiming the Messiahship of Jesus was not completed by his own saintliness of character and keen perception of the peoples needs, and knowledge of Jesus, and incorruptible truthfulness. There was given to him a sign from heaven, that he might be strengthened to bear this responsibility, and that the Messiah might never seem to be only of the Baptists appointing and not of Gods. Some degree of disappointment may be felt that external signs should have intruded on so profoundly spiritual and real an occasion as the baptism of Christ. Some may be ready to ask, with Keim, Is it, or was it ever, the way of God, in the course of His spiritual world, above all upon the threshold of spiritual decisions affecting the fate of the world, and in contradiction to the wise economy of revelation pursued by His supreme ambassador Himself, to take away from seeking and finding souls the labour of deciding their own destiny? But this is to suppose that the signs at the baptism of Jesus were mainly for His encouragement, whereas John describes them as being given for the certification of the Baptist. I knew Him not-that is, I did not know He was the Messiah-but He that sent me to baptize with water, He said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon Him, the same is He that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.

The baptism of Jesus was, in fact, His anointing as the Messiah; and this anointing by which He became the Christ was an anointing, not with a symbolic oil, but with the Divine Spirit (Act 10:38). This Spirit descended upon Him in a bodily shape (Luk 3:22), because it was not one member or faculty or power which was communicated to Jesus, but a whole body or complete equipment of all needful Divine energies for His work. God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto Him; there is no gauge, no metre checking the supply. Now for the first time can the whole Spirit be given, because now for the first time in Jesus is there room to receive it. And that the Baptist may confidently proclaim Him as King the sign is given,-not the outward sign alone, but the outward sign accompanying and tallying with the inward sign; for it was not said to the Baptist, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see a dove descend, but, upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descend.

This anointing of Jesus to the Messiahship occurred at the moment of His truest identification of Himself with the people. John shrank from baptizing One whom he knew to be already pure, and to have no sins to confess. But Jesus insisted, identifying Himself with a polluted people, numbered with transgressors. It was thus He became true King and Head of mankind, by identifying Himself with us, and taking upon Him, through His universal sympathy, all our burdens, feeling more shame than the sinners self for his sin, pained with the suffering in all their pain. It was the Divine Spirit of universal love, attracting Him to all sorrow and suffering, which identified Him in the mind of His first confessor as the Christ, the Son of God. This to the Baptist was the glory of the Only-begotten, this sympathy which felt with all, and shrank from no sorrow or burden.

Thus equipped, the Baptist gives his testimony with confidence. This testimony is manifold, and uttered on several occasions,-to the Sanhedrims deputation, to the people, and to his own disciples. It is negative as well as positive. He repudiates the suggestions of the deputation from Jerusalem that he himself is the Christ, or that he is in their sense Elijah. But the most remarkable repudiation of honours which could be rendered to Christ alone is found recorded in Joh 3:22-30, when the growing popularity of Jesus excited the jealousy of those who still adhered to the Baptist. Their complaint was the occasion of calling up clearly in the Baptists own consciousness the relation in which he stood to Jesus, and of prompting the most emphatic enouncement of the unrivalled dignity of our Lord. He says to his jealous disciples, If I do not gather a crowd of followers while Jesus does, this is because God has appointed to me one place, to Him another. Beyond Gods design no mans destiny and success can extend. What is designed for me I shall receive; beyond that I desire to receive and I can receive nothing. Least of all would I covet to be called the Christ. You know not what you say in even remotely hinting that such a man as I could be the Christ. It is no mere unworldliness or purity which can raise a man to this dignity. He is from above; not to be named with prophets, but the Son of God, who belongs to the heavenly world of which He speaks.

To make the difference between himself and Christ clear, the Baptist hits upon the happy figure of the Bridegroom and the Bridegrooms friend. He that has and keeps the Bride is the Bridegroom. He to whom the world is drawn, and on whom all needy souls lean, is the Bridegroom, and to Him alone belongs this special joy of satisfying all human needs. I am not the Bridegroom, because men cannot find in me satisfaction and rest. I cannot be to them the source of spiritual life. Moreover, by instigating me to assume the Bridegrooms place you would rob me of my peculiar joy, the joy of the Bridegrooms friend. The function of the bridegrooms friend, or paranymph, was to ask the hand of the bride for the bridegroom, and to arrange the marriage. This function the Baptist claims as his. My joy, he says, is to have negotiated this matter, to have encouraged the Bride to trust her Lord. It is my joy to hear the glad and loving words that pass between Bridegroom and Bride. Do not suppose I look with sadness on the defection of my followers, and on their preference for Christ. These crowds you complain of are evidence that I have not discharged the function of paranymph in vain. To see my work successful, to see Bride and Bridegroom at length resting in one another with undisturbed, self-forgetting confidence, this is my joy. While the Bridegroom cheers the Bride with His voice, and opens to her prospects which only His love can realize, shall I obtrude myself and claim consideration? Is it not enough for one life to have had the joy of identifying the actually present Christ, and of introducing the Bride to her Lord? Has not that life its ample reward which has been instrumental in achieving the actual union of God and man?

Probably, then, the Baptist himself would think we waste too much emotion over his self-sacrifice and magnanimity. After all, it not being possible to him to be the Messiah, it was no small glory and joy to be the friend, the next, to the Messiah. The tragic character of the Baptists death, the despondent doubt which for a time shook his spirit during his imprisonment, the severe life he had previously led, all tend to make us oblivious of the fact that his life was crowned with a deep and solid joy. Even the poet who has most worthily depicted him still speaks of

John, than which man a sadder or a greater Not till this day has been of woman born.

But the Baptist was a big enough man to enjoy an unselfish happiness. He loved men so well that he rejoiced when he saw them forsake him to follow Christ. He loved Christ so well that to see Him honoured was the crown of his life.

Besides this negative repudiation of honours that belonged to Jesus, the Baptist emits a positive and fivefold testimony in His favour, (1) to His dignity (Joh 1:15; Joh 1:27; Joh 1:30), He that cometh after me is preferred before me; (2) to His pre-existence (Joh 1:15; Joh 1:30), which is adduced as the reason of the foregoing, for He was before me; (3) to His spiritual fulness and power (Joh 1:33), He baptizeth with the Holy Ghost; (4) to the efficacy of His mediation (Joh 1:29), Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world; (5) to His unique personality (Joh 1:34), this is the Son of God.

1. Three times over the Baptist declared the superiority of Jesus; a superiority so immense that language failed him in trying to represent it. The Rabbis said, Every office which a servant will do for his master a scholar should perform for his teacher, except loosing his sandal-thong. But this exceptionally menial office the Baptist declares he was not worthy to perform for Jesus. None so well as the Baptist himself knew his limitations. He had evoked in the people cravings he could not satisfy. There had gathered to him a conscience-stricken people, longing for renewal and righteousness, and demanding what he had no power to give. Therefore, not merely his explicit enouncements from time to time, but his entire ministry, pointing to a new order of things which he himself could not inaugurate, declared the incomparable greatness of Him that was to come after him.

2. This superiority of Christ was based on His pre-existence. He was before me. It may appear unaccountable that the Baptist, standing on Old Testament ground, should have reached the conclusion that Jesus was Divine. But it is at any rate evident that the Evangelist believed the Baptist had done so, for he adduces the Baptists testimony in support of his own affirmation of the Divine glory of the Incarnate Word (Joh 1:15). After the wonderful scene at the Baptism, John must have talked closely with Jesus regarding both His work and His consciousness; and even if the passage at the close of the third chapter is coloured by the Evangelists style, and even by his thought, we must suppose that the Baptist had somehow arrived at the belief that Jesus was from above, and made known upon earth the things which He, in a pre-existent state, had heard and seen.

3. The Baptist pointed to Jesus as the source of spiritual life. He baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. Here the Baptist steps on to ground on which his assertions can be tested. He declares that Jesus can communicate the Holy Ghost-the fundamental article of the Christian Creed, which carries with it all else. No one knew better than the Baptist where human help failed; no one knew better than he what could be effected by rites and rules, by strength of will and asceticism and human endeavour; and no one knew better at what point all these become useless. More and more they seemed to him but a cleansing with water, a washing of the outside. More and more did he understand that, not from without, but from within, true cleansing must proceed, and that all else, save a new creation by the Spirit of God, was inefficacious. Only Spirit can act upon spirit; and for true renewal we need the action upon us of the Divine Spirit. Without this no new and eternal kingdom of God can be founded.

4. The Baptist pointed to Jesus as the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world. That by this title he meant only to designate Jesus as a person full of gentleness and innocence is out of the question. The second clause forbids this. He is the Lamb that takes away sin. And there is only one way in which a lamb can take away sin, and that is, by sacrifice. The expression no doubt suggests the picture in the fifty-third of Isaiah of the servant of Jehovah meekly enduring wrong. But unless the Baptist had been previously speaking of this chapter, the thoughts of his disciples would not at once turn to it, because in that passage it is not a lamb of sacrifice that is spoken of, but a lamb meekly enduring. In the Baptists words sacrifice is the primary idea, and it is needless to discuss whether he was thinking of the paschal lamb or the lamb of morning and evening sacrifice, because he merely used the lamb as the representative of sacrifice generally. Here, he says, is the reality to which all sacrifice has pointed, the Lamb of God.

5. The Baptist proclaims Jesus as the Son of God. That he should do so need not greatly surprise us, as we read in the other Gospels that Jesus had been thus designated by a voice from heaven at His baptism. Very early in His ministry, not only His disciples, but also the demoniacs ascribe to Him the same dignity. In one sense or other He was designated Son of God. No doubt we must bear in mind that this was in a rigidly monotheistic community, and in a community in which the same title had been freely applied to Israel and to Israels king to designate a certain alliance and close relation subsisting between the human and the Divine, but of course not suggesting metaphysical unity. But considering the high functions which clustered round the Messianic dignity, it is not unlikely that the Messiahs forerunner may have supposed that a fuller meaning than had yet been recognised might be latent in this title. Certainly we are safe in affirming that by applying this title to our Lord, the Baptist intended to indicate His unique personality, and to declare that He was the Messiah, Gods Viceroy on earth.

Whether we can add to this testimony the thoughts contained in the closing paragraph of the third chapter may be doubted. The thought of the passage moves within the circle of ideas familiar to the Baptist; and that the style is the style of the Evangelist does not prevent us from receiving the ideas as the Baptists. But there are expressions which it is difficult to suppose that the Baptist could have used. The preceding conversation was occasioned by the growing popularity of Jesus; was this, then, an occasion on which it could be said, No one receives His testimony? Is this not more appropriate to the Evangelist than to the Baptist? It would seem, then, that in this paragraph the Evangelist is expanding the Baptists testimony, in order to indicate its application to the eternal relations subsisting between Jesus and men generally.

The contents of the paragraph are a most emphatic testimony to the pre-existence and heavenly origin of Christ. In contrast to persons of earthly origin, He is from heaven. He cometh from above, as if His entrance into this world were a conscious transition, a voluntary coming from another world. His origin determines also His moral relationships and His teaching. He is above all, in dignity, in authority, in spirit; and He speaks what He has seen and heard. But in the thirty-fourth verse a new idea is presented. There it is said that He speaks the words of God, not directly, because He is from above, and speaks what He has seen and heard, but because God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto Him. What are we to understand by this double Divine inhabitation of the humanity of Jesus? And what are we to understand by the Spirit being given without measure to the Incarnate Word?

In the Old Testament two ideas present themselves regarding the Spirit which illustrate this statement. The one is that which conveys the impression that only a limited amount of spiritual influence was communicated to prophetic men, and that from them it could be conveyed to others. In Num 11:17 the Lord is represented as saying to Moses, I will take of the Spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and in 2Ki 2:9 Elisha is represented as praying that the eldest borns portion, the two-thirds of Elijahs spirit, might be bequeathed to him. The idea is a true and instructive one. The Spirit does, in point of fact, pass from man to man. It is as if in one receptive person the Divine Spirit found entrance through which He might pass to others. But another idea is also frequent in the Old Testament. The Spirit is spoken of rather as conferring a gift here and a power there than as dwelling wholly and permanently in men. One prophet had a dream, another a vision, a third legislated, a fourth wrote a psalm, a fifth founded an institution, a sixth in the power of the Spirit smote the Philistines, or, like Samson, tore a lion in pieces.

In Christ all powers are combined-power over nature, power to teach, power to reveal, power to legislate. And as in the Old Testament the Spirit passed from man to man, so in the New Testament Christ first Himself receives and then communicates to all the whole Spirit. Hence the law noticed at a subsequent stage of this Gospel that the Spirit was not yet given; because Jesus was not yet glorified (Joh 7:39). We cannot see to the bottom of the law, but the fact is apparent, that until Christ received into every part of His own humanity the fulness of the Divine Spirit, that Spirit could not fill with His fulness any man.

But why was the Spirit needed in a personality of which the Word, who had been with God and known God, was the basis? Because the humanity of Christ was a true humanity. Being human, He must be indebted to the Spirit for all impartation to His human nature of what is Divine. The knowledge of God which the Word possesses by experience must be humanly apprehended before it can be communicated to men; and this human apprehension can only be arrived at in the case of Christ by the enlightenment of the Spirit. It was useless for Christ to declare what could not be apprehended by human faculty, and His own human faculty was the measure and test of intelligibility. By the Spirit He was enlightened to speak of things Divine; and this Spirit, interposed, as it were, between the Word and the human nature of Jesus, was as little cumbrous in its operation or perceptible in consciousness as our breath interposed between the thinking mind and the words we speak to declare our mind.

To return to the direct testimony of the Baptist, we must (1) acknowledge its value. It is the testimony of a contemporary, of whom we know from other sources that he was generally reckoned a prophet-a man of unblemished and inviolable integrity, of rugged independence, of the keenest spiritual discernment. There was no man of larger size or more heroic mould in his day. In any generation he would have been conspicuous by his spiritual stature, his fearless unworldliness, his superiority to the common weaknesses of men; and yet this man himself looks up to Jesus as standing on quite a different platform from his own, as a Being of another order. He can find no expressions strong enough to mark the difference: I am not worthy to loose His shoe latchet; He that is of the earth (that is, himself) is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: He that cometh from heaven is above all. He would not have used such expressions of Isaiah, of Elijah, of Moses. He knew his own dignity, and would not have set so marked a difference between himself and any other prophet. But his own very greatness was precisely what revealed to him the absolute superiority of Christ. These crowds that gathered round him-what could he do for them more than refer them to Christ? Could he propose to himself to found among them a kingdom of God? Could he ask them to acknowledge him and trust in him for spiritual life? Could he promise them His Spirit? Could he even link to himself all kinds of men, of all nationalities? Could he be the light of men, giving to all a satisfying knowledge of God and of their relation to Him? No; he was not that light, he could but bear witness of that light. And this he did, by pointing men to Jesus, not as a brother prophet, not as another great man, but as the Son of God, as One who had come down from heaven.

It is, I say, impossible that we can make nothing of such a testimony. Here was one who knew, if any man ever did, spotless holiness when he saw it; who knew what human strength and courage could accomplish; who was himself certainly among the six greatest men the world has seen; and this man, standing thus on the highest altitudes human nature can reach, looks up to Christ, and does not only admit His superiority, but shrinks, as from something blasphemous, from all comparison with Him. What is the flaw in his testimony, or why are we not accepting Christ as our light, as able to take away our sins, as willing to baptize us with the Holy Ghost?

But (2) even such testimony as Johns is not sufficient of itself to carry conviction to the reluctant. None knew better than Johns contemporaries that he was a true man, not liable to make mistakes in a matter of this kind. And his testimony to Christ did stagger them, and often held them in check, and no doubt threw a kind of undefined awe over the person of Christ; but, after all, not many believed on account of Johns testimony, and those who did were not influenced solely by his testimony, but by his work as well. They had become concerned about sin, sensitive to defilement and failure, and were thus prepared to appreciate the offers of Christ. The two voices chimed, Johns voice saying, Behold, the Lamb of God! the voice of their own conscience crying for the taking away of sin. It is so still. The sense of sin, the feeling of spiritual weakness and need, the craving for God, direct the eye, and enable us to see in Christ what we do not otherwise see. We are not likely to know Christ until we know ourselves. What is the mans judgment regarding Christ worth who is not conscious of his own littleness and humbled by his own guilt? Let a man first go to school with the Baptist, let him catch something of his unworldliness and earnestness, let him become alive to his own shortcomings by at last beginning to strive after the highest things in life, and by seeking to live, not for pleasure, but for God, and his views of Christ and his relation to Him will become satisfactory and true.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary