Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 3:25
Then there arose a question between [some] of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying.
25. Then there arose ] Better, there arose therefore; i.e. in consequence of John’s baptizing at Aenon.
a question ] Or, questioning.
between some of John’s disciples and the Jews ] Better, on the part of John’s disciples with a Jew. ‘A Jew’ for ‘Jews’ is the reading of the best authorities. We do not know what the question was; probably the efficacy of John’s baptism as compared with Christ’s, or as compared with the ordinary ceremonial washings, for purifying from sin. There is no clue as to who this Jew was. His question makes the disciples of John go at once to their master for his opinion about Jesus and His success.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
A question – Rather a controversy a dispute.
Johns disciples – Those who had been baptized by him, and who attached great efficacy and importance to the teaching of their master. Compare the notes at Act 19:1-5.
And the Jews – Many manuscripts, some of the fathers, and the ancient Syriac version read this in the singular number with A Jew, one who, it is commonly supposed, had been baptized by the disciples of Jesus.
About purifying – What the precise subject of this dispute was we do not know. From what follows, it would seem probable that it was about the comparative value and efficacy of the baptism performed by John and by the disciples of Jesus. The word purifying may be applied to baptism, as it was an emblem of repentance and purity, and was thus used by the Jews, by John, and by Jesus. About this subject it seems that a dispute arose, and was carried to such a length that complaint was made to John. From this we may learn:
1. That even in the time of Jesus, when the gospel began to be preached, there was witnessed what has been ever since – unhappy disputings on the subject of religion. Even young converts may, By overheated zeal and ignorance, fall into angry discussion.
2. That such discussions are commonly about some unimportant matter of religion – something which they may not yet be qualified to understand, and which does not materially affect them if they could.
3. That such disputes are often connected with a spirit of proselytism – with boasting of the superior excellence of the sect with which we are connected, or in connection with whom we have been converted, and often with a desire to persuade others to join with us.
4. That such a spirit is eminently improper on such occasions. Love should characterize the feelings of young converts; a disposition to inquire and not to dispute; a willingness that all should follow the dictates of their own consciences, and not a desire to proselyte them to our way of thinking or to our church. It may be added that there is scarcely anything which so certainly and effectually arrests a revival of religion as such a disposition to dispute, and to make proselytes to particular modes of faith, and of administering the ordinances of the gospel.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 25. John’s disciples and the Jews] Instead of , Jews, ABELS. M. BV, nearly 100 others, some versions and fathers, read , a Jew, which Griesbach has admitted into the text. The person here spoken of was probably one who had been baptized by the disciples of our Lord; and the subject of debate seems to have been, whether the baptism of John, or that of Christ, was the most efficacious towards purifying.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The Jews had so many purifyings, some legal, instituted by God, ordained by Moses as Gods minister; some traditional, brought in by the Pharisees, as their washings before meat, Mat 15:1-20; Mar 7:1-23; that seemeth a hard thing to determine what the question was between Johns disciples and the Jews, about what purifying; and the boldest determiners in this case are no better than guessers. Some would have baptism to be meant here by
purifying. It would much conduce to the resolution of the question if we knew what these Jews were with whom Johns disciples argued. If they were of the Pharisees, it is probable the question was about Johns baptism, considering the frequent washings and purifyings that they had in use amongst them. If they were other Jews, the question might be about the virtue and efficacy of the ceremonial washings, ordained by the law of God, whether they were mere types, and now to cease? Whether in themselves they conduced any thing to the washing and cleansing of a soul? If these Jews were (as some think, but I know not how it can be proved) disciples of Christ, the question might be about Johns and Christs baptism. This notion seemeth to be favoured by what went before; where the evangelist had been speaking of baptism, as administered by Christs disciples, and by John; as also from what followeth, viz. Johns disciples coming to him and complaining, that Christ by his disciples baptized more than their master. But there seemeth to be this great prejudice against the notion of those learned men that have embraced that notion, viz. That the question is said to have risen between Johns disciples and the Jews; now we want an instance in Scripture, where the disciples of John are put in opposition to the disciples of Christ, and under notion of the Jews; the term Jews generally signifying that part of the people who adhered to the Judaical rites and religion; especially where (as here) it is used in opposition either to the disciples of John or of Christ. It is most probable therefore the question was, either about the washings ordained by the law of Moses, or about the traditional washings observed by the Pharisees.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
25, 26. between some ofrather,”on the part of.”
and the Jewsrather(according to the best manuscripts), “and a Jew,”
about purifyingthatis, baptizing, the symbolical meaning of washing with water being put(as in Joh 2:6) for the actitself. As John and Jesus were the only teachers who baptized Jews,discussions might easily arise between the Baptist’s disciples andsuch Jews as declined to submit to that rite.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then there arose a question,…. A dispute, or controversy, occasioned by the baptism, of John and Christ:
between [some] of John’s disciples, and the Jews. The Syriac and Persic versions read, “between one of John’s disciples, and a certain Jew”; and Nonnus renders it, “with an Hebrew man”; and so the Alexandrian manuscript; many others read, “with a Jew”: the contention between them was
about purifying; either about the ceremonial purifications, and ablutions commanded in the law of Moses; or concerning the various washings of persons, and vessels, according to the traditions of the elders, which the Jews in common were very tenacious of; and which they thought were brought into neglect, and contempt, by the baptism of John: and this seems to have been occasioned by the baptism of Christ; which the Jew might improve against the disciple of John, and urge, that since another, besides his master, had set up baptizing, who could tell which was most right and safest to follow? and therefore it would have been much better, if no such rite at all had been used by any, but that the purifications required by the law of Moses, and by their elders, had been strictly and solely attended to.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
A questioning (). Old word from . See Ac 15:2 for the word where also (question) occurs. (process of inquiry) means a meticulous dispute (1Ti 6:4).
With a Jew ( ). So correct text, not (Jews). Probably some Jew resented John’s baptism of Jesus as implying impurity or that they were like Gentiles (cf. proselyte baptism).
About purifying ( ). See 2:6 for the word. The committee from the Sanhedrin had challenged John’s right to baptize (1:25). The Jews had various kinds of baptisms or dippings (Heb 6:2), “baptisms of cups and pots and brazen vessels” (Mr 6:4). The disciples of John came to him with the dispute (the first known baptismal controversy, on the meaning of the ceremony) and with a complaint.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Then [] . Not a particle of time but of consequence; therefore, because of both Jesus and John baptizing.
Question [] . Rev., more correctly, questioning. Question would be zhthma, always in the sense of a question in debate. The word here represents the process of inquiry.
Between [] . Rev., correctly, on the part of. Literally, proceeding from. The rendering of the A. V. does not show with which party the discussion originated. The Greek distinctly states that the question was raised by the disciples of the Baptist.
The Jews. The best texts read Ioudaiou, with a Jew. Possibly one who asserted that John’s baptism might now be dispensed with.
Purifying. Probably not about the familiar ceremonial purifications, but as to whether the baptism of Jesus or of John had the greater purifying power.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Then there arose a question,” (egeneto oun zetesis) “There therefore came to be a questioning,” there developed an inquiry.
2) “Between John’s disciples and the Jews,” (ek ton matheton loannou meta loudaiou) “Among the disciples of John with a Jew,” of the Mosaic law order of worshippers, who held to the law order ceremonies of purifying, rejecting the message of both John the Baptist and Jesus, and their baptism as a symbol of a new beginning, Joh 5:43; Ac 194; Gal 3:26-27; 1Pe 3:21.
3) “About purifying.” (peri katharismou) “Concerning purifying,” according to the Jewish order, and apparently he was attempting to find some place to add this baptism of John the Baptist, Jesus, and His church disciples, to their Jewish list of legal and traditional ceremonies of outward cleansing, or hygienic purification. He also seemed to be confused in thinking that the two baptisms (of John and Jesus) were different, not realizing that both were of heaven’s mandate, and only one baptism; That was to identify the baptismal candidate himself to follow Jesus, not Moses, in His New Covenant church order of fellowship, worship, and service, Joh 5:16; Joh 5:26; Mat 5:15-16; Mat 16:18; Mat 28:18-20; Act 1:8; Act 1:20-23; Act 2:1-4; Eph 3:21; 1Ti 3:15.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
25. A question then arose. Not without a good reason does the Evangelist relate that a question arose from the disciples of John; for just in proportion as they were ill-informed about doctrine, they are so much the more eager to enter into debate, as ignorance is always bold and presumptuous. If others had attacked them, they might have been excused; but when they themselves, though unfit to maintain the contest, voluntarily provoke the Jews, it is a rash and foolish proceeding. Now the words mean, that “the question was raised by them;” and not only were they to blame for taking up a matter which they did not understand, and speaking about it rashly and beyond the measure of their knowledge; but another fault — not less than the former — was, that they did not so much intend to maintain the lawfulness of Baptism as to defend the cause of their master, that his authority might remain unimpaired. In both respects, they deserved reproof, because, not understanding what was the real nature of Baptism, they expose the holy ordinance of God to ridicule, and because, by sinful ambition, they undertake to defend the cause of their master against Christ.
It is evident, therefore, that they were astonished and confounded by a single word, when it was represented to them that Christ also was baptizing; for while their attention was directed to the person of a man, and to outward appearance, (64) they gave themselves less concern about the doctrine. We are taught, by their example, into what mistakes those men fall who are actuated by a sinful desire to please men rather than by a zeal for God; and we are likewise reminded that the single object which we ought to have in view and to promote by all means is, that Christ alone may have the pre-eminence.
About purifying The question was about purifying; for the Jews had various baptisms and washings (65) enjoined by the Law; and not satisfied with those which God had appointed, (66) they carefully observed many others which had been handed down from their ancestors. When they find that, in addition to so great a number and variety of purifyings, a new method of purifying is introduced by Christ and by John, they look upon it as absurd.
(64) “ Et apparence exterieure.”
(65) “ De baptesmes et lavemens.”
(66) “ Que Dieu avoit instituez.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(25) Then there arose a question.For the Jews, the reading of the better MSS. is, a Jew. The question arose on the side of Johns disciples. What the exact nature of it was we do not know, and have no means of judging. It was one of the questions which in every age has arisen about external rites, and has too often been accompanied by a neglect of inner principles. This arose in some way from the fact of the disciples of Jesus baptising near to the place where John was baptising, and doubtless was closely connected with these baptisms. The fact is only preserved as an incidental introduction to the remarkable testimony of the Baptist which follows.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
25. The Jews Our Evangelist uses the term Jews in its later sense to signify Judaists, or Jewish opposers of Christianity. See note on Joh 1:19. The best manuscripts have the word here in the singular, a Jew. By comparing this verse with Joh 4:1, we infer that this Jew was one of the partisans of the Pharisees, who were hearing that Jesus was becoming more prominent than John. His dispute here is with John’s disciples in regard to the superiority of the two baptisms or purifyings. In view of Jesus’s great demonstration and miracles at the late Passover, and the larger and increasingly larger popularity of Jesus’s baptism, the Jew sees the superiority on Jesus’s side. John’s disciples, who share not the humility of their master, still imagine that, as prior to Jesus, as his Baptizer and Testifier, John is the superior.
Purifying This word, as designating the ritual effect of baptism, is here used to designate the rite itself.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘A discussion therefore arose between John’s disciples and a Jew (or ‘the Judaisers’) about purifying’.
A discussion arose between John’s disciples and ‘a Jew’ (or ‘the Judaisers’). As John’s disciples were in fact Jews this demonstrates that the term Jew or Jews, when used in the Gospel, is not to be taken as referring to the nation. It rather refers to those who were particularly zealous for Judaism. It was they who would be concerned about purification rites, and as we know some of the Judaisers had already challenged John on the matter (Joh 1:25).
Possibly one of the representatives of the Jewish eldership (or a group of them – the authorities are relatively equally divided on the question) was seeking to pin down the meaning of John’s baptism, possibly mistakenly seeing it as an aspect of ceremonial purification or connecting it with the proselyte initiation ceremony, for when a non-Jew became a proselyte he would be required to undergo a ceremonial bath, although that was self-administered and thus of a very different nature. It may be that while seeking to argue this theological point, he commented to them concerning the fact that Jesus was more successful than John (Joh 4:1). He was probably seeking to cause a division between John and Jesus. The fact that the author is aware of what the discussion was about shows how close he was to the action, but he deliberately leaves the matter vague. The fact that he does so shows that it is not important to the meaning of this section. It is only mentioned because it happened. There was clearly constant communication between John the Baptiser’s group and the disciples of Jesus (see Joh 4:1-3).
But the reader is, of course, aware that there is no argument. He knows that the old purificatory waters of Judaism have been replaced by the new wine of the Spirit.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The dispute concerning purifying:
v. 25. Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying.
v. 26. And they came unto John and said unto him, Rabbi, He that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to Him.
v. 27. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven.
v. 28. Ye yourselves bear me witness that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before Him.
v. 29. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. This my joy therefore is fulfilled. “Then,” at that time, in consequence of the proximity of the two great teachers, there arose a searching questioning, a dispute. On the one side were John’s disciples, of whom many still clung to him in spite of his first testimony concerning Jesus, and on the other were one or more Jews, probably some that had received instruction and had been baptized by the disciples of Jesus in His presence. The question concerned the significance of Baptism, the relation of the two baptisms to each other and to the Jewish washings, and whether the true baptizing and cleansing from sins was to be found with John or with Jesus. The disciples of John brought the matter to the attention of their master, not without some show of jealous resentment against Jesus. They do not mention His name, but describe Him as the one that had been with John on the other side of Jordan, concerning whom John had given a testimony. They were much wrought up over the fact that this man was baptizing, and that all the people were showing a strong inclination to go to Him. They could not understand that Jesus should baptize as well as John. As a matter of fact they should have been surprised that John continued his baptizing after Jesus had made His public appearance. John continued his work only because he believed that by his preaching and testifying he could serve Christ better than by following Him as His disciple. And he here took the opportunity of bearing witness of Christ once more. A man can take nothing, cannot assume rights, powers, privileges, and can have no success, no abiding success in his labors, unless it come to him from heaven. This is a general truth which finds its application in the case of Christ as well as in that of John. God has given to each one his special work to do. And it is therefore God’s doing that so many people are now turning to Jesus. Note: If any man does anything in the kingdom of God, that is the blessing of God. It is not like in the field of human endeavor, where each person selects the work that suits him best, and then expects results in proportion to the labor and ability expended. In the work of the Kingdom God alone gives the increase.
John therefore calls upon his disciples to bear witness to the fact that he has not presumed upon the rights of Christ. He had given a plain and unequivocal answer that he was not the Christ, the promised Messiah, but merely His forerunner. They should have been prepared for that which was now happening before them. John emphasizes this in a parabolic saying. Christ is the Groom; to Him the Church, the bride, belongs; to Him all the believers will turn and cling by faith. It should not occasion surprise, but should be deemed self-evident, that. poor sinners that are seeking help and salvation turn to Christ. To Him the souls belong. He has come to gain, to win, the souls of the sinners for Himself. John, as the friend of the Groom, stands by; he is satisfied with a secondary position; he is glad to be a mere listener. He rejoices greatly, with great joy, because the voice of the Groom is now heard in His invitation to all sinners to come to Him, the Redeemer. He has the fullness of this joy present with him, since Christ has come. The fact that men were turning to Jesus proved to John that his difficult task of preparing the way for the Messiah had not been performed in vain. There was not even the hint of a feeling of rivalry or jealousy in the words of John. It was all pure, unmixed joy and happiness at the success which was attending the ministry of Christ.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Joh 3:25. And the Jews It should be observed, that the word Jews, in this place and some others, does not mean persons of that nation in general, but of the country of Judea (see Joh 3:22.), where baptism had just then been administered under the direction of Jesus; and where, as most of John’s disciples were of Galilee, it was natural for persons of these two schools, to bring their respective disciples into competition; and that some Jews or men of Judea, baptized under Christ, would, by invidious comparisons, raise the jealousy of some Galileans baptized by John. The Jews called all sorts of ablutions prescribed by their teachers purifications: the subject therefore of this debate was, how Jesus, who had been himself baptized by John, came to re-baptize John’s disciples, Act 19:4-5 that is, assume a greater authority than John, and virtually declare, that his baptism was inefficacious for the purposes of purification. The Baptist’s disciples, though they had often heard their master speak on the subject, not understanding the subserviency of his ministry to that of Jesus, were unable to give their antagonists a satisfactory answer, so came and proposed their question to John himself. See the next verse.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 3:25-26 . ] in consequence of the narration of Joh 3:23 (Joh 3:24 being a parenthetical remark). Nothing is known more particularly as to this question ( ) which arose among John’s disciples ( . , comp. Lucian. Alex . 40; Herod. v. 21). The theme of it was “ concerning purification ” ( ), and, according to the context, it did not refer to the usual prescriptions and customs in general (Weizscker), but had a closer reference to the baptism of John and of Jesus, and was discussed with a Jew , who probably placed the baptism of Jesus, as being of higher and greater efficacy with regard to the power of purifying (from the guilt of sin), above that of John. Comp. Joh 3:26 . Possibly the prophetic idea of a consecration by purification preceding the Messiah’s kingdom (Eze 36:25 ; Zec 13:1 ; Hofm. Weissag. u. Erf . II. 87) was spoken of. Who the was (Hofmann, Tholuck, a Pharisee) cannot be determined. A Jewish Christian (Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, and others; also Ewald) would have been more exactly designated. According to Luthardt, it was an unfriendly Jew who declared that the baptism of John might now at length be dispensed with, and who wished thus to beguile the Baptist to become unfaithful to his calling, by which means he hoped the better to work against Jesus. An artificial combination unsupported by the text, or even by , Joh 3:26 . For that this indicated a perplexity on the part of the disciples as to the calling of their master finds no support in the words of the Baptist which follow. There is rather expressed in that ., and in all that John’s disciples advance, who therefore do not name Jesus, but only indicate Him, a jealous irritation on the point, that a man, who himself had just gone forth from the fellowship of the Baptist, and who owed his standing to the testimony borne by the latter in his favour ( ), should have opened such a competition with him as to throw him into the shade. Through the statements of the Jew, with whom they had been discussing the question of purification, there was awakened in them a certain feeling of envy that Jesus, the former pupil (as they thought), the receiver of a testimony at the hand of their master, should now presume to put himself forward as his superior rival. They saw in this a usurpation, which they could not reconcile with the previous position of Jesus in relation to the Baptist. But he, on the contrary, vindicates Jesus, Joh 3:27 , and in Joh 3:28 brings into view His far higher position, which excluded all jealousy.
, . . .] Joh 1:28-29 .
and have the emphasis of something unexpected; namely, that this very individual should (according to their view) interfere with their master in his vocation, and with such results!
, an exaggeration of excited feeling. Comp. Joh 12:19 . Not: “all who submit to be baptized by Him” (Hengstenberg).
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
25 Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying.
Ver. 25. And the Jews ] Who joined themselves to John’s disciples, craftily and maliciously, that they might both set against Christ; like as the Jesuits at this day will cunningly comply with the Lutherans, and seem to side with them, that they may both set against the Calvinists.
About purifying ] That is, baptism, called elsewhere the laver of regeneration, Tit 3:5 , and by a Father, ‘ , a purging preservative. “Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,” saith Peter, but a better thing, 1Pe 3:21 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
25. ] The circumstances under which this dispute arose seem to have been these: John and our Lord were baptizing near to one another. (On the relation of their baptisms, see below on Joh 3:26 .) They were both watched jealously (see ch. Joh 4:1 ) by the Pharisees. One of these ( , i.e. . ) appears to have entered into dispute with the disciples of John about the relative importance of the two baptisms; they perhaps maintaining that their master’s preparatory to the Messiah was absolutely necessary for all, and he (the ) pointing out to them the apparent inconsistency of this Messiah himself authorizing a baptism in his name, and alleging that if so, their master’s baptism was rendered superfluous. We are driven to these conjectures, because the text gives us no further insight into the fact than that the circumstances and the answer of John render probable.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 3:25 . There arose therefore that is, in consequence of the proximity of these two baptisms on the part of John’s disciples [ , cf. Herod. Joh 3:21 and Dionys. Hal. viii. p. 556] a questioning, or discussion, with a Jew about purifying, that is, generally, including the relation of those two baptisms to one another, and to the Jewish washings, and the significance of each. The trend of the discussion may be gathered from the complaint to the Baptist, Joh 3:26 . As the discussion was begun by the disciples of John, it would seem as if they had challenged the Jew for seeking baptism from Jesus. For their complaint is (Joh 3:26 ) . That Jesus should baptise as well as John they could not understand. Really, the difficulty is that Jesus should have allowed John to go on baptising, and that John should not himself have professed discipleship of Jesus. But so long as John saw that men were led by his preaching to accept the Messiah he might well believe that he served Christ better thus than by following in His train.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Joh 3:25-30
25Therefore there arose a discussion on the part of John’s disciples with a Jew about purification. 26And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified, behold, He is baptizing and all are coming to Him.” 27John answered and said, “A man can receive nothing unless it has been given him from heaven. 28″You yourselves are my witnesses that I said, ‘I am not the Christ,’ but, ‘I have been sent ahead of Him.’ 29″He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. So this joy of mine has been made full. 30″He must increase, but I must decrease.
Joh 3:25 “there arose a discussion on the part of John’s disciples with a Jew” “Discussion” (NASB, NRSV, NJB) is a strong term for “controversy” or “confrontation.” Some Greek manuscripts have the plural “Jews.” The ancient Greek manuscripts are equally divided. Because the singular is more unusual (i.e., MSS P25, 2, A, B, L, W), it is probably original. UBS4 gives it a “B” rating (almost certain). The tendency of the ancient scribes was to harmonize and smooth out the text. It is also interesting to note that John’s disciples probably instigated this argument.
NASB, NKJV,
NRSV, NJB”about purification”
TEV”the matter of ritual washing”
There have been several theories about the focus of this dispute (NKJV).
1. it is possible that John’s followers were discussing the relationship between the baptisms of John and Jesus as they related to the Jewish tradition of washings; the same term is used in Joh 2:6.
2. some believe it relates to the immediate context where Jesus was teaching that His life and ministry totally fulfilled Judaism
a. Joh 2:1-12, the wedding feast of Cana
b. Joh 2:13-22, the cleansing of the temple
c. Joh 3:1-21, the discussion with Nicodemus, the ruler of the Jews
d. Joh 3:22-36, the washings of the Jews and the baptisms of John the Baptist and Jesus.
The fact that the context does not expand specifically on this particular discussion highlights the fact that it gave another opportunity for John the Baptist to witness about the supremacy of Jesus of Nazareth.
Joh 3:26 “to whom you have testified, behold, He is baptizing and all are coming to Him” The disciples remembered John’s earlier testimony about the Lamb of God (cf. Joh 1:19-36), and they are apparently a little envious over the success (hyperbole) of Jesus. Jesus was also sensitive to any spirit of competition (cf. Joh 4:1).
Joh 3:27 “A man can receive nothing unless it has been given him from heaven” This is a very straightforward affirmation that there is no competition in spiritual matters. Everything believers have is given to them by the grace of God. However, there has been much discussion as to the meaning of “it” and “him.”
1. some say “him” refers to the believer and “it” refers to one coming to Christ for salvation (God initiates, humans can only respond, cf. Joh 6:44; Joh 6:65)
2. others believe the “him” refers to Jesus and the “it” refers to believers (cf. Joh 6:39; Joh 10:29; Joh 17:2; Joh 17:9; Joh 17:11; Joh 17:24)
The difference between these two views would be that the term “given” refers either to the salvation of the individual believer or that all believers themselves are a gift from God to Jesus (cf. Joh 17:2).
Joh 3:28 “I am not the Christ” John the Baptist affirms specifically, as he did in Joh 1:20, that he is not the Messiah, but the forerunner. This is an obvious allusion to the prophetic passages of Mal 3:1; Mal 4:5-6, combined with Isaiah 40 (cf. Joh 1:23). See note on “Messiah” at Joh 1:20 and Special Topic at Joh 4:25.
Joh 3:29 “He who has the bride is the bridegroom” It is striking that there are so many OT allusions to this marriage metaphor describing the relationship between God and Israel (cf. Isa 54:5; Isa 62:4-5; Jer 2:2; Jer 3:20; Eze 16:8; Eze 23:4; Hos 2:21). Paul also uses it in Eph 5:22 ff. Christian marriage may be the best modern example of a covenant relationship.
“So this joy of mine has been made full” The noun “joy” and verb “rejoice” are used three times in this verse. Instead of having a competitive spirit, John the Baptist obviously recognized his place and rejoiced in Jesus.
Joh 3:30 “He must increase, but I must decrease” The term “must” (dei) here is significant. It has already been used in Joh 3:14; Joh 4:4. It is a strong affirmation of John’s understanding of himself as simply a forerunner of the greater and more significant ministry of Jesus.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Then = Therefore: i.e. on account of the facts stated in verses: Joh 3:22-24.
question = questioning.
between some of = [on the part] of. Greek ek. App-104.
and = with. Greek. meta. App-104. the Jews. All the texts read “a Jew”. Greek. Ioudaion, with Syriac. But it has been suggested that Iou was the primitive abbreviation for Iesou (= of Jesus), and being repeated (by inadvertence) led to the reading Iou[daion] (= a Jew). This would agree better with verses: Joh 3:22-24; with “Therefore” in Joh 3:26, and with the action of John’s disciples, and John’s answer. See the Structure H2 above.
about = concerning. Greek. peri. App-104.
purifying = purification. Compare Joh 2:6. Luk 2:22; Luk 5:14.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
25.] The circumstances under which this dispute arose seem to have been these:-John and our Lord were baptizing near to one another. (On the relation of their baptisms, see below on Joh 3:26.) They were both watched jealously (see ch. Joh 4:1) by the Pharisees. One of these (, i.e. . ) appears to have entered into dispute with the disciples of John about the relative importance of the two baptisms; they perhaps maintaining that their masters preparatory to the Messiah was absolutely necessary for all, and he (the ) pointing out to them the apparent inconsistency of this Messiah himself authorizing a baptism in his name, and alleging that if so, their masters baptism was rendered superfluous. We are driven to these conjectures, because the text gives us no further insight into the fact than that the circumstances and the answer of John render probable.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 3:25. , Accordingly) There is reference to Joh 3:22; comp. Joh 3:26, They came unto John and said, Rabbi, He that was with thee beyond Jordan, etc., the same baptizeth, etc.-) A question, a temperate one: not a quarrel.-, on the part of) The question was mooted by the disciples of John.- ) with the Jews, those who now no longer resorted to John, but to Jesus; whilst the disciples of John were contending, that purifying ought to be sought from John.-, purifying) from sins. Mar 1:4, John did baptize, etc., and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Comp. Eph 5:26, That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. A word of frequent use among the Jews. Comp. Heb 9:13-14, If the blood of bulls and goats, etc., sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, etc., purge your conscience; 2Ma 1:36, , : Joh 2:16, . John nowhere employs the terms, a baptism, a baptizing [baptisma, baptismus], the Baptist; see Joh 3:5, be born of water [not, be baptized]; nay, even to express Levitical baptism he uses the term, purifying, ch. Joh 2:6.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 3:25
Joh 3:25
There arose therefore a questioning on the part of Johns disciples with a Jew about purifying.-John taught the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins. Jesus was teaching the same, and out of this grew some reasonings on the subject of purifying.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
about: Joh 2:6, Mat 3:11, Mar 7:2-5, Mar 7:8, Heb 6:2, Heb 9:10, Heb 9:13, Heb 9:14, Heb 9:23, 1Pe 3:21
Reciprocal: Mat 9:14 – the disciples Mat 11:2 – he Mar 7:4 – except Mar 11:30 – General Luk 11:38 – he marvelled Joh 1:35 – and two Joh 10:17 – General Act 13:24 – General Act 21:24 – and purify Heb 1:2 – appointed
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5
A distinction is made between John’s disciples and the Jews, although John did not baptize any but Jews (Luk 1:16). This shows that while all of John’s disciples were Jews, not all of the Jews as a nation became his disciples, and hence were not the people whom he prepared for Christ.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying.
[A question about purifying.] I. Question; Syriac, inquire; which calls to mind that which is so perpetually in use amongst the Talmudic authors; R. N. inquired of R. N. Whence that also, as familiarly used, If you ask I will tell you. If the word in this place be taken according to this scholastic use of it, as it may very well be, then we may expound this passage thus:
The disciples of John, having heard that Jesus did baptize also, they with the Jews inquire, what sort of purifying resulted from the baptism of Christ; whether that purified more than the baptism of John. They inquire jointly, Doth Jesus superinduce a baptism upon the baptism of John? and John his upon the baptisms or washing of the Jews? Whither will this purifying at last tend? and what virtue hath this of Jesus’ beyond that of John’s?
II. Or, if you will, suppose we that this be a dispute betwixt the disciples of St. John and the Jews about the legal purifications and the baptism now introduced: there is no doubt but both parties contended to the uttermost of their power.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Joh 3:25. There arose therefore a questioning on the part of Johns disciples with a Jew about purifying. In the circumstances just described, discussion would inevitably arise as to the relative position and value of the two baptisms. A Jew (see note on chap. Joh 1:19) had placed the baptism of Jesus above that of John in regard to its purifying power. Although the Jews in general were hostile to Jesus, this man may have shared the convictions of Nicodemus (Joh 3:1-2). The disciples of John refused to regard their masters baptism as less efficacious than that of another, who had been himself baptized by him. Unable either to set the question at rest, or to ignore the opposition of the Jew, they brought the matter of contention before John. On the symbolic character of Johns baptism, see the note on Joh 3:5; on purification, see ii 6, Joh 13:10, Joh 15:3, and 1Jn 1:7; 1Jn 1:9.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, What a spirit of envy there was in John’s disciples against Christ, upon account of the multitude of his followers: He that was with thee beyond Jordan, baptizeth, and all men come to him.
Where note, 1. How meanly John’s disciples think and speak of our Saviour, compared with John their master. They do not so much as allow him a name, or give him any title, but He that was with thee beyond Jordan, the same baptizeth.
Observe, 2. How they intimate, as if Christ had received all his credit and reputation from their master John: He to whom thou bearest witness, baptizeth; as if they had said, “This man whom the people flock after, neglecting thee and thy disciples, is much inferior to thee; for he came to thee, thou didst not go to him; thou baptizedst him, he did not baptize thee; thou gavest testimony to him, he did not give testimony to thee.”
Whence we observe, What a bitter spirit of envy and emulation there has always been amongst the ministers of the gospel, even from the very first plantation of the gospel, which causes them to look upon the exalted parts and gifts of others, as a diminution and debasing of their own; but why should as the prospering of the work of God, in one minister’s hand, be matter of repining unto others? Shall not God honour what instruments he pleaseth? And will he not reward all his faithful labourers, according to their sincerity, not according to their success.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Joh 3:25-26. Then there arose a question Or a dispute; between some of Johns disciples and the Jews Or rather, a certain Jew: for, though the common editions read Jews, the greater number of MSS., among which are some of the most valuable, some ancient expositors also, and critics read, a Jew, in the singular; with which agrees both the Syriac versions. To which may be added some of our best modern critics, as Grotius, Cocceius, Hammond, Mill, and Wetstein. Campbell. About purifying That is, as appears from the sequel, about baptisms, and other legal ablutions. The Jews called all sorts of ablutions, prescribed by their teachers, purifications. The subject, therefore, of this debate, seems to have been, how Jesus, who had been himself baptized by John, came to rebaptize Johns disciples, (Act 19:4-5,) that is, assume greater authority than John, and virtually declare that his baptism was inefficacious for the purposes of purification. And they came unto John The Baptists disciples, though they had often heard their master speak on the subject, not understanding the subserviency of his ministry to that of Jesus, were unable to give their antagonists a satisfactory answer, so they came and proposed their question to John himself; and said, He to whom thou barest witness Gavest such an honourable testimony; behold, the same baptizeth People that come to him from all parts, yea, even such as have before received thy baptism. They seem to have been apprehensive that this would cause Johns baptism to be neglected, and would tend to the injury of his character.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Ver. 25. There arose therefore a dispute on the part of John’s disciples with a Jew, touching purification.
The occasion of the following discourse was a discussion provoked by the competition of the two neighboring baptisms. , therefore, marks this relation. The expression on the part of the disciples, shows that John’s disciples were the instigators. The reading of the greater part of the Mjj. , a Jew, instead of ,some Jews, is now generally preferred. I accept it, without being able to convince myself altogether of its authenticity. Should not the substantive have been accompanied by the adjective ? And would an altercation with a mere unknown individual have deserved to be so expressly marked? The three most ancient Versions agree in favor of the reading , Jews.
The Sinaitic MS. also reads in this way. The two substantives in , before and after this word, might have occasioned an error. The subject of the discussion was the true mode of purification. Of what purification? Evidently of that which should prepare the Jews for the kingdom of the Messiah. Meyer thinks that the Jew ascribed to the baptism of Jesus a greater efficacy than to that of John.Chrysostom, followed by some others, holds that the Jew had had himself baptized already by the disciples of Jesus. Hofmann and Luthardt suppose, on the contrary, because of the term Jew, that he belonged to the Pharisaic party, hostile both to Jesus and to John, and that he had maliciously recounted to the disciples of John the successes of Jesus. The use of this term scarcely allows us, indeed, to suppose in this man kindly feelings, either towards Jesus or towards John. Perhaps in response to the disciples of John who invited him to have himself baptized, reminding him of the promises of the Old Testament (Eze 36:25, etc.), he answered ironically that one knew not to whom to go: Your master began; here is a second who succeeds better than he; which of the two says the truth? The question was embarrassing. The disciples of John decide to submit it to their master. This historical situation is too well defined to have been invented.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Verse 25
Purifying; baptism.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
3:25 {8} Then there arose a question between [some] of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying.
(8) Satan inflames the disciples of John with a fond emulation of their master in order to hinder the course of the gospel: but John, being mindful of his office, not only puts a stop to their endeavours, but also takes occasion by that means to give testimony of Christ, that in him alone the Father has set forth everlasting life.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Evidently the discussion in view centered on the relation of John’s baptism to other ceremonial washings that various other Jewish authorities espoused. These other washings probably included the practices prescribed in the Old Testament and more modern rites of purification that some Jewish leaders advocated. This verse provides the background from which John’s disciples approached him in the next verse.