Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 1:34
And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
34. And I saw, and bare record ] Better, And I have seen and have borne witness. ‘I have seen’ is in joyous contrast to ‘I knew Him not,’ Joh 1:31 ; Joh 1:33. ‘Have borne witness’ is the same verb as in Joh 1:7-8 ; Joh 1:32: hence ‘witness’ is preferable to ‘record’ both here and in Joh 1:32.
the Son of God ] The Messiah. This declaration of the Baptist agrees with and confirms the account of the voice from heaven (Mat 3:17).
These verses, 32 34, prove that S. John does not, as Philo does, identify the Logos with the Spirit.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But when I saw that, I could not but believe, and also bear an open testimony to the world, that this man was not mere man, but the eternal Son of that God, who sent me to baptize with water; reserving still to himself the Divine power of blessing that holy sacrament, and conferring the Holy Ghost in regenerating habits, working like fire, in purging away the dross of souls, and like water, washing away the filth of sin, Mat 3:11; Joh 3:5.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And I saw,…. The Spirit descending from heaven as a dove, and lighting upon Jesus, and remaining some time on him; this he saw with his bodily eyes:
and bore record; at the same time, before all the people that were with him, when he baptized Jesus:
that this is the Son of God; the natural, essential, and eternal Son of God; who being sent in the fulness of time, had assumed an human nature, in which he became subject to all ordinances, and had the Spirit without measure bestowed on him; and which was an evidence who he was, and of what he came about.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
I have seen (). Present perfect active of . John repeats the statement of verse 32 ().
Have borne witness (). Perfect active indicative of for which verb see 32.
This is the Son of God ( ). The Baptist saw the Spirit come on Jesus at his baptism and undoubtedly heard the Father’s voice hail him as “My Beloved Son” (Mark 1:11; Matt 3:17; Luke 3:22). Nathanael uses it as a Messianic title (Joh 1:49) as does Martha (11:27). The Synoptics use it also of Christ (Mark 3:11; Matt 14:33; Luke 22:70). Caiaphas employs it to Christ as a Messianic title (Mt 26:63) and Jesus confessed under oath that he was (verse Mt 26:64), thus applying the term to himself as he does in John’s Gospel (John 5:25; John 10:36; John 11:4) and by implication (the Father, the Son) in Mt 11:27 (Lu 10:22). Hence in the Synoptics also Jesus calls himself the Son of God. The phrase means more than just Messiah and expresses the peculiar relation of the Son to the Father (John 3:18; John 5:25; John 17:5; John 19:7; John 20:31) like that of the Logos with God in 1:1.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “And I saw, and bare record,” (kago Heorako kai memartureka) “And I have seen, and have witnessed,” as a personal eye witness, as he had already affirmed, repeatedly, Joh 1:15; Joh 1:19; Joh 1:32.
2) “That this is the Son of God.” (hoti houtos estin ho huios tou theou) “That this one (Jesus) is (now exists as) the Son of God,” the heir of God, as His only begotten, the Redeemer of the universe, whom He sent, Joh 1:14; Joh 3:16; Joh 3:18; 1Jn 4:9; Gal 4:4-5. And He still is. The voice from heaven called Him “my beloved son,” a voice that John heard, and that confirmed to Him that Jesus was the Son of God, Mat 3:17; Mar 1:11; Luk 3:22.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
34. I saw and testified. He means that what he declares is not doubtful; because God was pleased to make him fully and thoroughly acquainted with those things of which he was to be the witness to the world; and it is worthy of notice, that he testified that Christ was the Son of God, because he who gives the Holy Spirit must be the Christ, for to no other belongs the honor and the office of reconciling men to God.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(34) And I saw and bare record.Better, and I have seen and have borne witness, as in Joh. 1:32. The result of personal conviction was, that he forthwith testified to others, and continued to do so until the present. One of the sayings taught to his scholars was, He was (existed) before me. The revelation of the baptism and the voice heard from heaven (Mat. 3:17) has given to this its true meaning. Teacher has now learnt, and learner is now taught, that Jesus is this pre-existent Being, the Messiah, the Son of God.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
34. This is the Son of God At the baptism, God’s own voice attested to the Baptist’s ear, This is my beloved Son, marking him to view as the sole and single One among all the beings of the universe.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”
What he has seen now enables him to bear witness that ‘this is the Son of God’. It is possible that the Baptiser did not realise the full significance of his own words. It may be that he was thinking more of Jesus as the coming Messiah, the great future king (as would Nathaniel later in the chapter), for the kings of Israel were looked on as ‘sons of God’ by adoption (Psa 2:7; 2Sa 7:14). But that his thoughts went deeper than that is suggested by his earlier statement ‘Who was before me’. (It was not a recognised Messianic title). He may thus rather have had in mind Isa 9:6 where the Messiah is seen to be ‘the Mighty God’. There is no doubt, however, that the writer intends the term to be taken in its full significance by his readers and hearers.
So John the Baptiser sees Jesus as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 (the Lamb of God) and the coming Spirit filled king of Isa 11:1-3. This ties in with the voice at Jesus’ baptism, ‘this is my son (Psa 2:7), the beloved in whom I am well pleased (Isa 42:1)’ It may well have been there that John the Baptiser realised the full significance of Jesus.
In Matthew’s Gospel we learn that John had not wanted to baptise Jesus because he felt he (John) was unworthy (Mat 3:14). He felt rather that it was Jesus Who should baptise him. But Jesus there replied that it was becoming for Him to ‘fulfil all righteousness’, that is, ‘do all that is fully right’. He wished to identify Himself with the people of God and do all that was right for them, even though He had no need to repent. This further stresses that that baptism was not one of ‘cleansing’ but rather indicating response to the times of the Holy Spirit.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 1:34 . A still more distinct and emphatic conclusion of what John had to adduce from Joh 1:31 onwards, in explanation of the mentioned in Joh 1:30 .
] and I on my part, answering triumphantly to the double in Joh 1:31 ; Joh 1:33 .
] i.e . as the divine declaration in Joh 1:33 had promised ( ). This having seen is to the speaker, as he makes the declaration, an accomplished fact. Hence the Perfect , like in Joh 1:32 . Nor can the be differently understood unless by some arbitrary rendering; it does not mean: “ I shall have borne witness ” (De Wette, Tholuck, Maier), as the aorist is used in the classics (see on Joh 6:36 ); or, “ I have borne witness, and do so still ” (Grotius, Lcke), or “ testis sum factus ” (Bengel, comp. Bernhardy, p. 378 ff.); but, I have borne witness , that is, since I saw that sight; so that, accordingly, John, immediately after the baptism of Jesus , uttered the testimony which he here refers to as an accomplished fact, and by referring to which he ratifies and confirms what he now has testified (Joh 1:30 ). Comp. also Winer, p. 256 [E. T. p. 341].
, . . .] the subject-matter of the .
] the Messiah , whose divine Sonship, however, had already been apprehended by the Baptist in the metaphysical sense (against Beyschlag, p. 67), agreeably to the testimony borne to His pre-existence in Joh 1:30 ; Joh 1:15 : , , Nonnus. The heavenly voice in Mat 3:17 , in the synoptic account of the baptism, corresponds to this testimony. All the less on this account are the statements of the Baptist concerning Jesus to be regarded as unhistorical, and only as an echo of the position assigned to the former in the Prologue (Weizscker). The position of the Baptist in the Prologue is the result of the history itself. That the meaning attaching to . in the fourth Gospel generally is quite different from that which it has in the Synoptics (Baur), is a view which the passages Mat 11:27 ; Mat 28:19 , should have prevented from being entertained.
Note .
On Joh 1:32-34 we may observe in general: (1.) The and the are not to be regarded as identical in John’s view (against Baur, bibl. Theol. d. N. T . II. 268; J. E. Chr. Schmidt, in d. Bibl. f. Krit. u. Exeg . I. 3, p. 361 ff.; Eichhorn, Einl . II. 158 ff.; Winzer, Progr ., Lps. 1819), against which the in Joh 1:14 is itself conclusive, in view of which the in our passage appears as an hypostasis distinct from the , an hypostasis of which the could not have been predicated. The was the substratum of the divine side in Christ, which having become incarnate, entered upon a human development, in which the divine-human subject needed the power and incitement of the . (2.) He was of necessity under this influence of the Spirit from the very outset of the development of His divine-human consciousness (comp. Luk 2:40 ; Luk 2:52 , and the visit when twelve years old to the temple), and long before the moment of His baptism, so that the was the awakening and mediating principle of the consciousness which Jesus possessed of His oneness with God; see on Joh 10:36 . Accordingly, we are not to suppose that the Holy Ghost was given to Him now for the first time, and was added consciously to His divine-human life as a new and third element; the text speaks not of a receiving , but of a manifestation of the Spirit, as seen by John, which in this form visibly came down and remained over Him, in order to point Him out to the Baptist as the Messiah who, according to O. T. prophecy (Isa 11:2 ; Isa 42:1 ), was to possess the fulness of the Spirit. The purpose of this divine was not, therefore (as Matthew and Mark indeed represent it), to impart the Spirit to Jesus (which is not implied even in Joh 3:34 ), but simply for the sake of the Baptist, to divinely indicate to him who was to make Him known in Israel, that individuality who, as the incarnate Logos, must long before then have possessed the powers of the Spirit in all their fulness (comp. Joh 3:34 ). The in the symbolic form of a dove hovered over Jesus, remained over Him for a while, and then again vanished (comp. Schleiermacher, L. J . p. 150). This the Baptist saw; and he now knows, through a previously received revelation made to him for the purpose who it is that he has to make known as the Messiah who baptizes with the Spirit. To find in this passage a special stimulus imparted through the Spirit to Jesus Himself, and perceived by the Baptist, tending to the development or opening up of His divine human consciousness and life (Lcke, Neander, Tholuck, Osiander, Ebrard, De Wette, Riggenbach, and others; comp. Lange, and Beyschlag, p. 103), or the equipment of the Logos for a coming forth out of a state of immanence (Frommann), or the communication of official power (Gess, Pers. Chr . p. 374; comp. Wrner, Verhltn. d. Geistes , p. 44), as the principle of which the Spirit was now given in order to render the fit to become the instrument of His self-manifestation (Luthardt, after Kahnis, vom heiligen Geiste , p. 44; comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbew . I. 191, II. 1, 166; Godet; and Weisse, Lehrbegr . p. 268, who connects with Joh 1:51 ), as in a similar way B. Crusius already explained the communication of the Spirit as if the (in distinction from the ) were now received by Jesus, as that which was to be further communicated to mankind; these and all such theories find no justification from our Gospel at least, which simply records a manifestation made to the Baptist , not a communication to Jesus; and to it must be accorded decisive weight when brought face to face with those other diverging accounts. Thus, at the same time, this whole manifestation must not be regarded as an empty, objectless play of the imagination (Lcke): it was an objective and real divinely presented to the Baptist’s spiritual vision, the design of which ( , Joh 1:31 , that is, through the Baptist’s testimony) was sufficiently important as the of the Messiah (Justin. c. Tryph . 88), and the result of which (Joh 1:34 ) corresponded to its design; whereas, upon the supposition that we have here a record of the receiving of the Spirit, there is imported into the exposition something quite foreign to the text. If this supposition be surrendered, then the opinion loses all support that the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus at His baptism is a mythical inference of Ebionitism (Strauss), as well as the assertion that here too our Gospel stands upon the boundary line of Gnosticism (Baur); while the boldness of view which goes still further, and (in the face of the ) takes the to be, not the Holy Spirit, but the Logos (in spite of Joh 1:14 ), which as a heavenly Aeon was for the first time united at the baptism with Jesus the earthly man (so Hilgenfeld, following the Valentinian Gnosis), does not even retain its claim to be considered a later historical analogy. There remains, however, in any case, the great fact of which the Baptist witnesses “ the true birth-hour of Christendom ” (Ewald): for, on the one hand, the divinely sent forerunner of the Messiah now received the divinely revealed certainty as to whom his work as Elias pointed; and, on the other hand, by the divinely assured testimony which he now bore to Jesus before the people, the Messianic consciousness of Jesus Himself received not only the consecration of a heavenly ratification, but the warrant of the Father’s will, that now the hour was come for the holy of His ministry in word and work. It was not that now for the first time the Messiah’s resolve was formed; rather was it the entrance (comp. Act 13:23 ) upon His great work, the commencement of its realization, which was the great event in the world’s history that marked this hour, when the fulness of time was come for the accomplishment of the counsel of God.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
Ver. 34. Aud I saw and bare record ] They that would persuade others, must be strongly persuaded themselves (“We believed, therefore have we spoken,” 2Co 4:13 ; and “knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men,” 2Co 5:11 ); or at least they must seem so to be, as those odious apostates, Judas, Demas, Ecebolus, Speiser, Pendleton, Harding (Bishop Jewel’s adversary), who was one while a thundering preacher, wishing he could cry out against Popery as loud as the bells of Osney; and exhorting the people after this sort (as Mr Fox testifieth) a little before King Edward VI died, -that if trouble come, they should never shrink from the true doctrine of the gospel which they had received; but take it rather for a trial sent by God, to prove them, whether they would abide by it or no. All which to be true (saith mine author) they can testify that heard him, and be yet alive; who also foreseeing the plague to come, were then much confirmed by his words. (Acts and Mon.)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
34. ] A solemn reiteration of his testimony, after the mention of the giving of this token by Him who sent him; And I have seen ( accordingly ) &c.
The token must have been given to the Baptist by a special revelation , which also revealed to him his own errand and office; so Luk 3:2 , . .
is stronger than I have seen (on the perf. see above, Joh 1:32 ) and have borne testimony it is a reference to his testimony at the time, as a thing on record in their memories, and as still continuing.
. . (see Joh 1:18 ) = the made flesh, the Messiah.
On the import of the descent of the Spirit on Jesus at His baptism, those who can do so should consult Lcke’s very able Excursus, i. 433 443. In this commentary, see notes on Luk 2:41-52 .
I may just remark, that the Personal Logos, Who in our Lord, and was subjected to all the laws of human development in infancy, childhood, youth, evermore in an especial degree under the leading of the Holy Spirit, by whose agency the Incarnation had taken place, was the Recipient ( ) of this fulness of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost: and that herein consisted the real depth and propriety of this sign; the abiding of the Spirit without measure (ch. Joh 3:34 ) on Him indicated beyond doubt that He was the , for no mere human intelligence could be thus receptive of the Holy Spirit of God; we receive Him only as we can , only as far as our receptivity extends, by measure; but HE, into the very fulness and infinite capacities of His Divine Being.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 1:34 . . “And I have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God.” The Synoptists tell us that a voice was heard at the baptism declaring “this is my beloved Son”; and in the Temptation Satan uses the title. Nathanael at the very beginning of the ministry, and the demoniacs very little later, use the same designation. This was in a rigidly monotheistic community and in a community in which the same title had been applied to the king, to designate a certain alliance and close relation between the human representative and the Divine Sovereign. Whether the Baptist in his peculiar circumstances had begun to suspect that a fuller meaning attached to the title, we do not know. Unquestionably the Baptist must have found his ideas of the Messianic office expanding under the influence of intercourse with Jesus, and must more than ever have seen that this was a unique title setting Jesus apart from all other men. The basis of the application of the title to the Messiah is to be found in 2Sa 7:14 , “I will be to him a Father and he will be to me a Son”. In the second and eighty-ninth Psalms the term is seen passing into a Messianic sense, and that it should appear in the N.T. as a title of the Messiah is inevitable.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
I saw = I have seen. Greek. horao. App-133.
bare record = have borne witness.
the Son of God. App-98.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
34.] A solemn reiteration of his testimony, after the mention of the giving of this token by Him who sent him;-And I have seen (accordingly) &c.
The token must have been given to the Baptist by a special revelation, which also revealed to him his own errand and office; so Luk 3:2, . .
is stronger than -I have seen (on the perf. see above, Joh 1:32) and have borne testimony-it is a reference to his testimony at the time, as a thing on record in their memories, and as still continuing.
. . (see Joh 1:18) = the made flesh, the Messiah.
On the import of the descent of the Spirit on Jesus at His baptism, those who can do so should consult Lckes very able Excursus, i. 433-443. In this commentary, see notes on Luk 2:41-52.
I may just remark, that the Personal Logos, Who in our Lord, and was subjected to all the laws of human development in infancy, childhood, youth,-evermore in an especial degree under the leading of the Holy Spirit, by whose agency the Incarnation had taken place,-was the Recipient ( ) of this fulness of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost: and that herein consisted the real depth and propriety of this sign;-the abiding of the Spirit without measure (ch. Joh 3:34) on Him indicated beyond doubt that He was the ,-for no mere human intelligence could be thus receptive of the Holy Spirit of God;-we receive Him only as we can, only as far as our receptivity extends,-by measure; but HE, into the very fulness and infinite capacities of His Divine Being.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 1:34. ) I saw the Spirit descending.-) and thence [in consequence].-) I became a witness [I bare record].- , the Son of God) And so the Messiah. The reference is to that which is stated: Mat 3:7. [Namely, how Jesus in His baptism, teas proclaimed the Son of GOD, and in His temptation asserted Himself to be the Son of GOD: thus this very truth, that He is the Son of GOD, is explained more at length in the first verses. Also these verses have a fitting place here, as intended to designate that Person, of whom John the Baptist bare record, by the mission divinely entrusted to him. The events which precede the entrance (the coming forward) of John the Baptist, namely, the nativity and baptism of Christ, etc., these the Evangelist has most dexterously interwoven with the rest.-Harm., p. 154.]
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 1:34
Joh 1:34
And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.-Having seen this sign from God he testified that Jesus is the Son of God.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
this: Joh 1:18, Joh 1:49, Joh 3:16-18, Joh 3:35, Joh 3:36, Joh 5:23-27, Joh 6:69, Joh 10:30, Joh 10:36, Joh 11:27, Joh 19:7, Joh 20:28, Joh 20:31, Psa 2:7, Psa 89:26, Psa 89:27, Mat 3:17, Mat 4:3, Mat 4:6, Mat 8:29, Mat 11:27, Mat 16:16, Mat 17:5, Mat 26:63, Mat 27:40, Mat 27:43, Mat 27:54, Mar 1:1, Mar 1:11, Luk 1:35, Luk 3:22, Rom 1:4, 2Co 1:19, Heb 1:1, Heb 1:2, Heb 1:5, Heb 1:6, Heb 7:3, 1Jo 2:23, 1Jo 3:8, 1Jo 4:9, 1Jo 4:14, 1Jo 4:15, 1Jo 5:9-13, 1Jo 5:20, 2Jo 1:9, Rev 2:18
Reciprocal: Mal 3:1 – and he Mat 3:11 – but Mat 21:37 – last Mar 9:7 – This Mar 11:31 – Why Mar 12:6 – one Mar 14:61 – the Son Luk 1:17 – before Luk 1:77 – give Luk 3:18 – General Luk 20:5 – Why Luk 20:13 – I will Luk 22:70 – the Son Joh 6:27 – for him Joh 9:35 – the Son Joh 10:41 – but Joh 12:17 – bare Act 13:25 – whom Rom 1:3 – his Son
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
4
After John saw the evidence so strangely demonstrated, he became a witness in person. The subject of his testimony was the great fact that the person he baptized under such unusual circumstances, was the Son of God.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 1:34. And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God. I have seen, for the result of the seeing abides unchanged and ever present: I have borne witness, for the Baptist has entered on that one witness-bearing for which he was sent (Joh 1:7), and which it will henceforth be his office simply to repeat. It is particularly to be noticed that the witness referred to is not that Jesus baptizes with the Spirit, but that He is the Son of God,a designation which expresses the divine nature and character of Jesus, and with this the relation in which He stands to the Father. In one aspect He is God; in another He is the Son of God, the Son distinct from the Father. The link of connection between the transcendent conclusion of the Baptist and the fact upon which it rests is probably to be found in the thought that He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit, who therefore has the power to impart the gifts and influence of the Spirit of God, must be Divine. The special form which this confession of our Lords divinity takes was, we cannot doubt, determined by the words spoken from heaven: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (Mat 3:17).
It has been sometimes maintained that Son of God must be understood as a mere designation of the Messiah. For this opinion we believe that no evidence can be found, either in Scripture or in early Jewish writings. There are, indeed, passages in the Old Testament, acknowledged to be prophecies of the Messiah, in which a Divine Sonship is attributed to Him (see especially Psa 2:7); but the name seems to be always indicative of nature, and not merely of office. How the name was understood by the Jews of our Lords day may be seen from chap. Joh 5:18-19, Joh 10:29-30; Joh 10:33.
It is important to compare this section with the corresponding portions of the other Gospels. The omissions are very remarkable. We say nothing of the Evangelists silence as to the circumstances of our Lords birth and early years; this belongs to the general plan of the Gospel, which here agrees with that of Mark. But it is noteworthy that nothing is said of the baptism of Jesus, or of the temptation which followed. To the baptism, however, there is a clear allusion in Joh 1:33-34; hence its place in the order of events is fore Joh 1:19. The temptation also was at an end before John saw Jesus coming unto him (Joh 1:29). On the other hand, these verses contain many coincidences in language with the Synoptic Gospels. Johns application of Isa 40:3, and the contrast which he draws between himself, baptizing in water, and Him who shall baptize with the Holy Ghost, are related by every Evangelist. In all the Gospels, also, we find words similar to those of Joh 1:27.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Ver. 34. And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.
The , I, in , distinguishes, as in Joh 1:31; Joh 1:33, him who alone was to see, and who also () has seen, from all the others who were to believe on the ground of his testimony. The perfects: I have seen and I have testified indicate facts accomplished once for all and abiding for the future. The , that, depends on the second verb only; the verb to see is without an object; it is the act which is of importance, as the condition of that of testifying. The term Son of God characterizes a being as a representative of the divinity in a particular function. It is applied in the Old Testament to angels, to judges, to kings, and, finally, to the Messiah: Thou art my Son; to-day have I begotten thee (Psa 2:7; Psa 2:12); but there is a difference in the mode of representation in each case. An ambassador represents his sovereign, but otherwise than does the son of the latter, for the son, while representing the sovereign, represents in him also his father. Joh 1:30 proves that John the Baptist takes the word Son here in the loftiest sense which can be attached to it; the being whose existence is united to that of God by an incomparable bond, and who comes to fulfill here on earth the function of Saviour.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is {r} the Son of God.
(r) This word “the” points out to us some excellent thing, and makes a distinction between Christ and others, whom Moses and the prophets commonly call the sons of the most High.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
John fulfilled this purpose by witnessing that Jesus was the Son of God (cf. 2Sa 7:14; Psa 2:7). This is a title that unambiguously claims deity. The title "Messiah" did not imply deity to many who heard it in Jesus’ day. They thought only of a political deliverer. Even the Twelve struggled with this. However, John the Baptist testified that Jesus was God, though doubts arose in his mind later. Son of God does not mean any less than deity. It means full deity (Joh 1:18). This verse is the climax of John the Baptist’s testimony concerning Jesus.
The event that identified Jesus as the Son of God for John the Baptist was the fulfillment of God’s promise to him that he would see the Spirit’s descent and continuation on Him. This was the basis of John the Baptist’s witness concerning Jesus.