Chapter 2 John 1:19–34

Literary Context

Since this pericope immediately follows the prologue, it serves as the beginning of the narrative proper. It forms a secondary, though clearly subsidiary, introduction to the Gospel as it describes the appearance of Jesus the Word into the world, the historical context of first-century Israel near Jerusalem. The voice of the narrative is no longer the narrator’s alone but now also includes the characters with whom Jesus engages and ministers. The prologue’s introduction to the Baptist as a prophetic-apostolic witness to Jesus is made manifest in human history as John the “voice crying in the wilderness” is made public. The scene is first-century Israel just outside Jerusalem in Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John is drawing attention from the Jewish authorities because of his ministry and message, which includes a water baptism (v. 25). The ministry of John is primarily as witness to Christ; he has been “sent” by God for this very task.

I. Prologue (1:1–18)
II. The First Week: An Introduction to the Narrative Proper (1:19–51)
1. A. The Witness of John (1:19–34)
2. B. The First Disciples (1:35–51)

Main Idea

Jesus is introduced to Israel (and the world) at his entrance into world history with titles that manifest his ministry to redeem the world from sin. Jesus is both the sacrificial Lamb and the offered son of Abraham. The Baptist’s message is a reflection of a person who has seen who God is and what God has done: “Not me, but him!”

Translation

Structure and Literary Form

The “witness” (μαρτυρία) of John serves as a framing motif that forms an inclusio in 1:19–34. The structure of this pericope is different than the basic story form, with its conflict-resolution structure (see Introduction). Rather, the pericope is given direction by the designation of “days,” which guide the reader through the first “week” of Jesus’s ministry. The first “week” of the ministry of Jesus serves as the structure for the remainder of chapter 1 (see comments before 2:1), with two pericopae (vv. 19–34 and vv. 35–51) that function as an introduction to the narrative proper. In the first pericope, the events take place on the first two days of Jesus’s first week: day one: vv. 19–28, and day two: vv. 29–34.

Exegetical Outline

A. The Witness of John (1:19–34)
1. 1. John, the Voice in the Wilderness (1:19–28)
  1. a. “Not Me”: Jewish Authorities Question John (vv. 19–22)
  2. b. “But Him”: John’s Declaration of the Christ (vv. 23–28)
2. 2. Jesus, the Lamb and Son of God (1:29–34)
  1. a. John’s Witness to the Lamb of God (vv. 29–31)
  2. b. The Spirit’s Witness to the Son of God (vv. 32–34)

Explanation of the Text

The beginning of the narrative proper is crafted in such a manner that it forms a secondary and clearly subsidiary introduction to the Gospel. This secondary introduction locates the Word, Jesus Christ, in the historical context of the first century. Like the Synoptics, the Fourth Gospel begins with John the Baptist, though the nature of the Baptist’s role is unique in John. The prologue has already described the role of the Baptist as prophetic-apostolic witness to Jesus. Here the witness of the Baptist is given its public voice. That “witness” (μαρτυρία) of John becomes an inclusio that frames 1:19–34.

1:19 Now this is the witness of John, when the Jews from Jerusalem sent [to him] priests and Levites in order to ask him, “Who are you?” (Καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ Ἰωάννου, ὅτε ἀπέστειλαν [πρὸς αὐτὸν] οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐξ Ἱεροσολύμων ἱερεῖς καὶ Λευίτας ἵνα ἐρωτήσωσιν αὐτόν, Σὺ τίς εἶ;). The opening of the narrative proper begins with the established witness of John the Baptist. The nature of the witness is intended to be carried over from the prologue, for this opening statement is not primarily a historical note but is intending to “bring out the official character” of the Baptist’s witness.1 The verb “is” (ἐστὶν) functions as a perfective present, or as Wallace suggests, a testimonium present.2 The testimonium of the Baptist who came “in order to witness” (1:7) is now given his first occasion.

The “witness” is given its first juridicial testing when some ambassadors are sent to cross-examine the witness. The scene is full of lawsuit imagery and forensic overtones.3 The witness of the Baptist is of such a character that it drew an official delegation from Jerusalem. We cannot know with certainty what attracted the delegation to John. That they were “sent” (ἀπέστειλαν)—the same word used for the sending of the Baptist (1:6)—renders their visit to the Baptist as official business. The members of the delegation, “priests and Levites” (ἱερεῖς καὶ Λευίτας), also imply that it was an official visit and may even reflect the nature of the delegation.

This is the only place where priests and Levites are mentioned in John, so there is no other use from which we may derive John’s assumption regarding these groups. In general, both priests and Levites belonged to the lower ranks of the clergy. Priests were rarely high in social status. The Levites were even lower; forbidden to take part in the offering of sacrifice, they usually provided service as musicians, doormen, and the police force of the temple.4 It has been argued that the lower rank of the priests and Levites might imply that the authorities in Jerusalem were initially content to send a low-ranking delegation to gather intel regarding the Baptist’s pretensions and activities.5 While this is certainly possible, it might be implying too much. Priests and Levites were “the employees of the nation for the purposes of maintaining the worship of God in the temple, and teaching and judging the people.”6

Even beyond their roles and titles, the purpose for which they were sent reveals the official nature of the delegation. They were sent “in order to ask” (ἵνα ἐρωτήσωσιν) a specific question of Baptist: Who are you? (σὺ τίς εἶ;). This question regarding his identity bears the weight of questions regarding his origins, intentions, and message. With the language of an official sending, and the sending of an official delegation, such a question makes clear that it was not an informal visit or a visit out of curiosity, as if they were merely interested in John’s baptism as a purification ritual.7 This was an official visit with religious and political implications. In a world that was without prophets, John was a prophetic voice. And his sudden and unexpected appearance had created quite a stir. The people had been listening to John, so an official delegation was sent to provide a report. The religious-political tensions are highlighted by the sending party, “the Jews,” who in the Fourth Gospel serve as the primary interlocutor of Jesus.

In Depth: “The Jews”

“The Jews” (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι) are collectively an important character in the Fourth Gospel, and their introduction in the first verse of the narrative proper is significant. “The Jews” are mentioned in the Gospel seventy-one times; in the Synoptics they are only mentioned seventeen times. Over half of the occurrences are in conflict scenes where they are opposed to Jesus and his ministry. At the same time, the Jews are not always portrayed negatively; some Jews appear to be believers (cf. 8:31; 11:45; 12:11), and even Jesus is called a “Jew” by the Samaritan woman (4:9). The term has been viewed as problematic in the contemporary, postholocaust world.8 The complexity of the term and its frequent occurrence will demand a developing analysis throughout the narrative, but a few things can be stated as an introductory summary.

First, at the most basic level “the Jews” (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι) must be understood in their historical context. In the context of the first century the term is best understood by drawing its meaning from the post-Old Testament period when both “Jew” and “Israelite” were used to indicate that a person belonged to the ancestry of Israel and the religious community of Judaism.9 In the context of the Gospel the term is regularly applied by John to Judaism and its official leaders, the center of which is at Jerusalem. “The Jews” are not always described negatively, as noted above, but they are clearly recognizable to the reader of John as a frequent opponent of Jesus. They defend the letter of the law (5:16), refuse to accept the authority of Jesus and his messianic status (9:22), and, after denying his kingship, ultimately deny their own status as the people of God (19:14–16).10 Thus, as much as the Gospel is written with Jewish ink, the Gospel’s use of “the Jews” demands, at least in part, some level of separation from the evangelist.

Second, our translation, “the Jews” (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι), though not without debate, best allows for the narrative development of the term and a particularly Johannine duality of meaning. The search for the term’s meaning solely in its literary or social-historical context often undermines the use of the term in John. In a very real sense Jesus (and the Gospel) is in conflict with “the Jews.” But it could be no other way for the Word is in conflict with his entire creation. To exclude the Jews would be to exclude a part of creation from its Creator. Reinhartz makes an interesting claim: “The Fourth Gospel’s polemic against the Jews undermines its declaration of God’s boundless love for the world.”11 But the reverse is in fact the case; it is not love that is the problem but sin. The Word is the Light shining in the darkness. And as the Baptist will shortly declare, this light is the “Lamb of God,” a particularly significant term for “the Jews.” But this Lamb is not simply intended for Jews but for the sin of the “world” (1:29). This is God’s love.

1:20 And he confessed and did not deny, and he confessed: “I am not the Christ” (καὶ ὡμολόγησεν καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσατο, καὶ ὡμολόγησεν ὅτι Ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ὁ Χριστός). The repetitive style of the verse sets the Baptist’s response in a framework of solemnity. It is not uncommon for the two verbs, “confess” (ὁμολογέω) and “deny” (ἀρνέομαι), to be used in the same context and by way of contrast (cf. Josephus, Ant. 6.151). The former often carries a judicial connotation and is best translated as “confess,” making certain that the statement by the Baptist be taken as having a forensic meaning as part of the legal examination. Yet while the positive-negative combination is common enough, this is the only occurrence of a triple combination (positive-negative-positive) in the Gospel. This tautological introduction to the Baptist’s confession is not to be understood as an editorial enhancement,12 or as a message directed at the Baptist’s disciples who claimed him as Messiah,13 but as a necessary use of repetition “to express the form of the confession.”14 The fullness of the introduction is a necessary correlate to the fullness of the denial.

The confession of John is stated emphatically: “I am not the Christ” (ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ὁ χριστός). The emphatic “I” (ἐγώ) simultaneously declares that he is not and another is. The declaration about himself is entirely in the negative. The Baptist’s role as the prophet-apostle, which was established in the prologue, is now in full effect. John has become “the normative image of the Christian preacher, apostle, and missionary, the perfect prototype of the true evangelist, whose one goal is self-effacement before Christ.”15

The Baptist denies in full that he is “the Christ” (ὁ Χριστός). In this context “Christ” is used in an undefined sense, almost certainly denoting “the Messiah” and “the anointed one” but without determining precisely how that title was to be understood.16 For the Jew it clearly had messianic connotations; for the gentile it was often understood as a personal name. While it is undeniable that John assumes the former in this context, the fact that the latter use was applied in 1:17 implies that the undefined “Christ” is not entirely a mystery. But the Baptist’s indefinite use of the title is intended to separate himself from the “Christ”; only after he has separated himself will the Baptist be able to define “the Christ.”

Although we are not given the exact question(s) from the interlocutors, the Baptist’s response implies that the topic was in reference to messianic hopes and expectations, which were undoubtedly high in the time of Jesus. The expectations were almost certainly varied in two ways. First, claims about the messiah could generally be defined along three messianic identities: (1) Davidic messiah, (2) priestly messiah, and (3) “the Prophet” (Deut 18:15–19). While we can assume that “Davidic” and “priestly” were the most prominent, none of the identities were mutually exclusive. It is more than likely that a conglomerate messianic identity was basic to the common first-century Jew. Second, there is evidence that the nonappearance of the messiah shifted the expectations from a physical sense, a warrior-king of God who would lead a national independence movement, to a spiritual sense, a chosen one of God who would be filled with the Spirit.17 The diversity of expectations explains why Jesus expressly refused to accept the title of “Messiah,” especially when it was attached to warrior-king expectations (cf. 18:11, 36).

1:21 And they asked him, “Who are you, then? Are you Elijah?” And he said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No” (καὶ ἠρώτησαν αὐτόν, Τί οὖν σὺ; Ἠλίας εἶ; καὶ λέγει, Οὐκ εἰμί. Ὁ προφήτης εἶ σύ; καὶ ἀπεκρίθη, Οὔ). In v. 20 the questions asked by the interlocutors were not even given; it was the Baptist’s answer that was the focus. In v. 21 the opposite is the case without in any way minimizing the continuing force of the strong negative of v. 20. Whether it was out of curiosity or a further exploration of the nature and source of the Baptist’s activity, the investigators from Jerusalem continue with an onslaught of questions. The question of his identity is equally a question of mission and purpose, which in a heated religious-political context might explain the continued questioning.

The interlocutors ask him two further questions; the first asks, “Are you Elijah?” (Ἠλίας εἶ;). The question is rooted in the promise made by the prophet Malachi. Malachi 3:1–4 claims that God (Yahweh) was to send a “messenger” to purify the temple and its priesthood in order to prepare the way for his own coming. In Malachi 4:5–6 (= 3:23–24 MT) God declares, “I will send you the prophet Elijah,” in order to turn people’s hearts so that God might not “come and strike the land with a curse.” This “messenger” was often considered a forerunner not of the divine judge but of the messiah and, in light of the later passage, was often identified as Elijah. This is the background that the Synoptics presuppose as they describe the Baptist. Matthew 3:4 and Mark 1:6 both record that John wore a camel-hair tunic and leather belt, the same apparel worn by Elijah the prophet (2 Kgs 1:8). Luke 1:17 is even more direct: Zechariah’s son will go before the Lord “in the spirit and power of Elijah” to turn people’s hearts, quoting directly from the two passages in Malachi. Even more, in the Synoptics Jesus himself identifies John the Baptist as the promised Elijah (Matt 11:14; 17:12; Mark 9:13; cf. Luke 1:17, where it is an angel speaking). Yet the Baptist denies being Elijah: “And he said, ‘I am not’ ” (καὶ λέγει· οὐκ εἰμί).

The second question asks, “Are you the Prophet?” (ὁ προφήτης εἶ σύ). The question is rooted in the promise of the “prophet like Moses” in Deuteronomy 18:15–19, to whom reference is also made in John 6:14; 7:40 (cf. Acts 3:22; 7:37). The Jewish tradition conceived of all sorts of “prophets” who would appear before the coming messiah (cf. Matt 16:14; Mark 6:15; Luke 9:19; 1 Macc 4:46; 14:41; 4 Ezra 2:18), but the traditions were inconsistent and did not provide a clear picture overall. However, there was more specific belief and hope that “the Prophet,” a new prophet, would be sent to the assistance of Israel, though it too was still inconsistent and unclear. The “Prophet” was given greater emphasis in Samaritan and Qumran literature.18 Clearly, therefore, the question by the interlocutors is reflecting currents within Judaism regarding an eschatological prophet, similar to the currents regarding Elijah. Yet the Baptist denies being the Prophet: “And he answered, ‘no’ ” (καὶ ἀπεκρίθη, οὔ.). The negative answer to the second question is narrated as stronger in force.

1:22 Finally they said to him, “Who are you? In order that we may give an answer to those who sent us: What do you say about yourself?” (εἶπαν οὖν αὐτῷ, Τίς εἶ; ἵνα ἀπόκρισιν δῶμεν τοῖς πέμψασιν ἡμᾶς· τί λέγεις περὶ σεαυτοῦ;). The conjunction (οὖν) in the narrative context is used to reflect the finality of the questioning; hence our translation “finally.” After receiving negative answers to all their questions, the interrogators finally resort to asking him a generic question regarding his identity. Instead of giving their own suggestion, they ask him what he thinks “about himself” (περὶ σεαυτοῦ). They needed a positive statement to report to their superiors, who had sent them. This is a clear sign that the delegation was official.

1:23 He said, “I am a voice crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ just as Isaiah the prophet said” (ἔφη, Ἐγὼ φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, Εὐθύνατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, καθὼς εἶπεν Ἠσαΐας ὁ προφήτης). The witness of the Baptist can only be the voice of the prophet. “He is no more than a voice.”19 John replies to the delegates from Jerusalem with a citation from Isaiah 40:3, a text also used at the beginning of his ministry in all three Synoptics. It is significant that the Baptist applies the words of Isaiah directly to himself; it is probably best to understand the final statement, “Just as Isaiah the prophet said” (καθὼς εἶπεν Ἠσαΐας ὁ προφήτης), as also belonging to the Baptist.

The use of the quotation is significant for two reasons. First, it locates the Baptist’s role within the broad and expected work of God. The Baptist’s declaration resonates through Isaiah 40:3 by connecting the Baptist with the great prophecy of the coming kingdom of God. The cry of the Baptist is one of penitence and conversion, without which the coming one cannot be received. Even more, the “crying voice” is “in the wilderness,” which harkens back to the exile and stirs afresh the image of the return of the covenant people from exile.

Second, the point of the quotation is that it gives no prominence to the person about whom it speaks. He is not an important person; he is no more than a voice—a “voice” who announces the “Word” and his activities. The statement, “Make straight the way of the Lord” (εὐθύνατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου), emphasizes that the Baptist’s real function is not to teach but to introduce. It is the “Word” that is central to the Baptist and to the eschatological promise of God rooted in Isaiah.

Interestingly, after the closing words of v. 23 in which Isaiah the prophet is named, the only other occasion when the Gospel quotes from Isaiah is in 12:38–41, where the prophet is named three times. The verses in John 12 are openly presented as the reflections of the evangelist perceiving in the public ministry of Jesus the fulfillment of prophecies in the book of Isaiah, forming a thematic inclusio that locates the public ministry of Jesus within the eschatological promises of the prophet Isaiah.

1:24 And some who were sent belonged to the Pharisees (Καὶ ἀπεσταλμένοι ἦσαν ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων). Some suppose that the delegation first mentioned in v. 19 is given a further introduction here (e.g., “Now they had been sent by the Pharisees,” RSV). The more likely meaning is that “some who were sent belonged to the Pharisees,” implying that some of the delegates were from the party of the Pharisees. The preposition “belong to” (ἐκ) functions as a partitive genitive.20 Thus, it speaks of a group within the group. This fits best with the interconnected questioning that clearly continues from v. 19, but is also historically plausible since it is very likely that some of the priests and Levites would belong to the party of the Pharisees even if they were not the majority.

The Pharisees are mentioned by the time of Jonathan of the Maccabeans, like the other two parties (cf. Josephus, Ant. 13.171). Having their origin in the “piety” movements that had joined forces against Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–163 BC), who attempted to turn the Jewish faith into a Greek religion, the Pharisees were “experts in the laws of their country” who “enjoyed the highest esteem of the whole nation” (Josephus, J.W. 1.648). But at best the Pharisees had popular support and indirect authority, for they were neither politically connected nor aristocratic. The Pharisees were strict and precise in regards to the law (Josephus, J.W. 2.162). One of the distinguishing marks of the Pharisees was commitment to “the traditions of the elders” as supplementing or amending biblical law (cf. Josephus, Ant. 13.297; Mark 7:1–13). Their popular support and concern for the law meant they generally controlled the teaching of many synagogues, though it would be historically inaccurate to give to the Pharisees sole concern for the law for it was properly basic to Judaism to be devoted to the law. In the Gospel of John the Pharisees are the ever-watchful and suspicious adversaries of Jesus. They keep the people under surveillance and influence them with their propaganda (cf. 4:1; 7:32, 47–52; 11:46; 12:19, 42), and are experts in religious matters (cf. 3:1–2, 10; 7:47–49; 8:13; 9:16, 28–29, 40–41).21

1:25 And they asked him and said to him, “Why, then, do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” (καὶ ἠρώτησαν αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ, Τί οὖν βαπτίζεις εἰ σὺ οὐκ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς οὐδὲ Ἠλίας οὐδὲ ὁ προφήτης;). The priests and Levites who belonged to the party of the Pharisees pose a further question to the Baptist. It is important to remember that the Gospel has not yet mentioned the baptism of John. The narrative takes it for granted that the readers are familiar with the tradition of John the Baptist. The question by the Pharisees might presuppose broader knowledge of a messianic baptism.22 There are, however, no extant Jewish traditions which indicate that the messiah, Elijah, or the Prophet would baptize; only the Baptist describes such a baptism (1:33). With such a lack of evidence regarding a messianic baptism, the question may be referring not to the baptism but to the official status of the one who does such baptisms: “Why do you perform what appears to be an official act if you have no official status?”23

1:26 And John answered them saying, “I baptize with water, but there is one among you whom you do not know (ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰωάννης λέγων, Ἐγὼ βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι· μέσος ὑμῶν ἕστηκεν ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε). John’s response answers both the nature of his baptism and his official status. Regarding the baptism, John states nothing surprising, for water was almost assumed for baptism as well as for other symbolic reasons. The reader familiar with the Synoptics would expect John’s opening statement to be contrasted with a greater kind of baptism, the baptism in the Holy Spirit that all three Synoptic Gospels refer to in a corresponding manner (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:7–8; Luke 3:16; cf. John 1:33). But John’s comparison is not between water and spirit but between “I” and “him.” In light of the greatness of Jesus, the topic of baptism fades away, for the subject matter of baptism “is among you” (μέσος ὑμῶν ἕστηκεν). The intention is not to minimize the role of baptism but to make clear that baptism is not an end in itself. As in the prologue, John is a witness to Jesus and nothing else. Whatever the secondary purpose of his baptism might be, the primary purpose is to bear witness to the hidden messiah. His baptism is intended to prepare the people for him.24 But there is more. The baptism no longer needs to look forward, for the one about whom John bears witness, the one about whom baptism refers, was there among them. The presence of the Word minimizes not only the role of the baptism but also the person of the Baptist. Yet in this moment the Baptist and his baptism serve as a rebuking witness to his interlocutors, who do not know who stands among them (“whom you do not know” [ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε]).

1:27 He is the one who comes after me; I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandal (ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ [ἐγὼ] ἄξιος ἵνα λύσω αὐτοῦ τὸν ἱμάντα τοῦ ὑποδήματος). Jesus is incomparably greater than John, and John, as a good witness, makes it known. John’s role is logically prior, though only on the plane of historical temporality (for the Word was in the beginning), and he is a prepatory witness to prepare the way for Jesus (vv. 22–23). John explains this emphatically by defining himself as not “worthy” (ἄξιος) enough to perform probably the most demeaning task assigned to household servants: caring for the feet of one’s master. Some ancient sources even considered the task too demeaning for servants to have to perform for their masters, for to do such work was to be a slave.25 Thus, although ancient teachers in Judaism usually expected disciples to function as servants, later rabbis allowed for one caveat: unlike slaves, they did not tend to the teacher’s sandals.26 The Baptist’s argument reversed the normal social norm in order to magnify the greatness of Christ. “The sum of it is that he wants to abase himself as much as he can lest any degree of honor wrongly given to him should obscure the superiority of Christ.”27 His relation is to the ministry of Christ; he is “a” prophet who prepares the way for “the” prophet. Any relation to his person can only be described in terms of a slave.

1:28 These things occurred in Bethany, on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing (ταῦτα ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐγένετο πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, ὅπου ἦν ὁ Ἰωάννης βαπτίζων). The topographic reference, at the level of the narrative, serves to close this section of the pericope (as elsewhere; cf. 6:59; 8:20; 11:54) by marking a division in the text. The reference also underscores the historical importance of John’s conduct and the trustworthiness of the narrative as referring to what really happened in a real place.28 The Bethany most commonly mentioned in the Gospels is southeast of Jerusalem and is best known for being the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus (11:1). The Bethany referred to here, however, is located “across the Jordan,” from the vantage point of the western side.

1:29 On the next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, the one who takes away the sin of the world” (Τῇ ἐπαύριον βλέπει τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐρχόμενον πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ λέγει, Ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου). The first occurrence of “on the next day” (τῇ ἐπαύριον) signifies that this is the second day of Jesus’s ministry and continues the creative theological image that we will develop below (see comments before 2:1). It also signifies a scene change: John’s witness before the Jewish leadership has broadened to a witness before all Israel (v. 31). The narrator explains that the Baptist “saw” (βλέπει) Jesus coming. Just as the Jews came “toward him” (πρὸς αὐτὸν), that is, the Baptist in v. 19, so also now the unique Son comes toward him in v. 29. The one about whom the Baptist had borne witness was now before him in the flesh.

Yet the voice of the prophet did not cease to be needed. The Word-in-flesh still needed a witness. John addresses those present before Jesus in a significant manner. Several aspects of the testimony need explanation. First, John begins the witness with the particle of exclamation, “Behold” (ἴδε). The conventionalized particle is used in Greek to draw attention to what follows. When used before a verb, it serves as a “prompter of attention,” but when used before a noun, as in this case, it serves as a “marker of strong emphasis.”29 The Fourth Gospel uses it in the latter sense when there is a challenge to perceive with the mind a truth not outwardly evident to human eyes. For example, it is used as a marker of strong emphasis in 19:14 when Pilate says to the Jews, “Behold, your king” (ἴδε ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑμῶν).30 Thus, the particle sets the tone regarding the importance of the person being emphatically introduced.

Second, Jesus is introduced as “the Lamb of God” (ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ). With the Old Testament no doubt providing the background, and in light of the reference to the removal of “sin,” the pronouncement in v. 29 can only be understood as pointing to Jesus as the “Lamb of God” who reconciles the world to God. This is a fitting development to the prologue’s description of the coming of the Word to the world. The exact meaning of the sacrificial title, however, is difficult to determine. There are several options worth exploring:31 1) The Passover lamb; however, the Passover victim was not always a lamb; 2) The “lamb” of Isaiah 53:7; however, the context makes no direct allusion to this text; 3) The “lamb” of daily sacrifices; however, the context again makes no direct allusion; 4) The triumphant Lamb of Revelation (5:6; 14:1–4; 17:14; 22:1, 3); though the ruling lamb is slain, the context in the Gospel focuses more directly on removing sin, not conquering enemies; 5) The lamb provided by God (Gen 22:8); though clearly focusing on God’s initiative and connecting to a central allusion in Jewish thought, the context makes no direct allusion to this narrative; 6) A guilt offering (e.g., Lev 14, especially v. 25); however, neither a guilt offering nor a sin offering was characteristically a lamb. Each of these options is possible, yet none of them secure direct allusions in the text. Before a conclusion can be drawn, the third aspect of the Baptist’s testimony regarding Jesus requires explanation.

Third, the Lamb of God is described as “the one who takes away the sin of the world” (ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου). The questions surrounding the nature of the “lamb” receive some insight from this participial qualifier and subsequent clause. The term here translated “to take away” (αἴρω), used frequently by the evangelist, can mean “take away,” “remove” (2:16; 11:39; 19:38; 20:2, 13, 15) and “destroy” (10:18; 11:48; 15:2; 19:15, 31). Its use with cognate words for “sin” finds strong support in the LXX (Exod 28:38; 34:7; Lev 10:17; 1 Sam 15:25; 25:28; Mic 7:18), and it is synonymous with other “removal” terms (cf. Isa 53:11–12). Though only implicit in our translation, the term here is best understood as a future present: the one who is to take away the sin of the world.32 Although more clarity as to what prefigures “the Lamb of God” is not provided, the message of the Baptist’s testimony is made certain. Jesus—the Word, the Light, the Life—is the Lamb of God and the Lamb of God, so that his person, ministry, and ultimately his death acts for the reconciliation of the world to God. It is the “chief office of Christ.”33 The emphasis is not merely on him but on those for whom he serves. The sacrificial act has narrowed from many lambs to one Lamb, and yet its benefits have broadened from one nation to the whole world.

Our discussion regarding method in the Introduction allows our exegetical decision here not to be forced to choose between the purview of the Baptist or the evangelist, and even allows the full biblical canon to speak into the meaning and scope of the referent. In an important way, the historical witness of John the Baptist coalesces with the narrative witness of the evangelist, both of which are placed within the canonical witness of all Scripture. Even though “Lamb of God” is spoken by the Baptist and is therefore controlled in part by his context and level of understanding (in contrast to the narrator’s creativity), the term cannot be ultimately contained by the Baptist’s purview. Out of the Baptist’s limited concept of messianic service and sacrifice protruded a full statement of the person and work of Jesus Christ for which the rest of the biblical canon is needed to explain. All the biblical allusions above, therefore, become part of the (canonical) context of the Gospel. The Lamb of God is Jesus, the crucified one. No NT passage concerning the sacrifice of Christ (e.g., in Paul) is excluded from the interpretive purview, for the allusion to the OT and NT images is not only welcome but necessary. Ultimately, the title ascribed to Jesus here at his first appearance in the Gospel narrative is coterminous with his last moments of life: Jesus is a Passover sacrifice (18:28; 19:36).

1:30 “This is the one about whom I said, ‘A man who follows me has surpassed me, because he was prior to me’ ” (οὗτός ἐστιν ὑπὲρ οὗ ἐγὼ εἶπον, Ὀπίσω μου ἔρχεται ἀνὴρ ὃς ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν). This statement from the Baptist echoes his previous statement as recorded in the prologue (see comments on 1:15). The verbal differences are merely a change in perspective. That perspectival change, however, allows v. 30 to highlight the humanity of Jesus. The eternal Word became “a man.” With these words the Baptist calls our attention to the fulfillment of his own prophecy. The prophetic witness of the Baptist has moved Jesus from the background to the immediate foreground, allowing for himself to be removed from the foreground and placed in the background.

1:31 “And I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was in order that he might be revealed to Israel” (κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν, ἀλλ’ ἵνα φανερωθῇ τῷ Ἰσραὴλ διὰ τοῦτο ἦλθον ἐγὼ ἐν ὕδατι βαπτίζων). The inclusion of the implied subject allows John to emphasize that he did not know Jesus. The use of the pluperfect “know” (ᾔδειν, from οἶδα), which carries here the meaning of an imperfect tense, suggests that it need not be inferred that John did not know Jesus at all, but only that he did not know he was “the unique Son.”34 Yet, that is the reason for which John came. John came to make known one he did not know. Not only is the one to whom John witnesses beyond him but even his mission is beyond him. The relation of the Baptist to Jesus is defined in full by the relation of Jesus to Israel (and the world).

What is this “revelation” to Israel, and how does the baptism of John facilitate it? “Israel” (Ἰσραήλ), used only four times in the Gospel (cf. 1:49; 3:10; 12:13), carries no negative connotations, unlike “the Jews” (see comments on 1:19). Thus, what was hidden from “the Jews” is revealed to Israel, even if the exact public disclosure of that revelation is not clearly designated by the Gospel.35 The subject matter of John’s revelatory witness to Israel is a “he.”36 This revelation, however, was set in the context of an assignment: baptism with water. Even before this element of baptism is contrasted with a greater baptismal element (v. 33), the reader is already aware that John’s water baptism reflects the inferiority and provisionality of his mission (cf. v. 27). It was not a cleansing baptism like the one to come but served its purpose as a sign of the one to come. Just as the lamb of Moses was a sign of the Lamb of God, so also the baptism of John was a sign of the baptism of Christ. The “sin[ners] of the world” (v. 29) are to receive John’s baptism as a call to penitence. The cleansing revelation “to Israel” was ultimately a preparatory cleansing designed to introduce “the one who takes away the sin of the world.”

1:32 And John witnessed saying, “I saw the Spirit descend like a dove from heaven, and he remained upon him” (Καὶ ἐμαρτύρησεν Ἰωάννης λέγων ὅτι Τεθέαμαι τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον ὡς περιστερὰν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν). The centrality of “witness” in the Gospel has already been explained (see 1:7). The subject matter of the witness gives further insight into John’s perception of Jesus. The verb John uses to describe what he “saw” (θεάομαι) is used in the NT to denote seeing with the physical eye, though it can carry along with physical sight a sense of perception that is “above and beyond what is merely seen with the eye.”37 The last time it was used was in 1:14, where the dual emphasis of real sight (i.e., not a vision; “we saw . . .”) was tied to real perception (i.e., a deeper perception; “ . . . his glory”). Both elements are contained in the use of the verb in this context.

John testified to seeing “the Spirit” (τὸ πνεῦμα). The dualistic view of the universe common to Western European philosophy might initiate an unhelpful mental impression regarding this term, especially in light of the Old Testament where its meaning necessarily consisted of a physical reality (e.g., wind).38 Thus John describes the physicality of what he saw: the Spirit “descend like a dove” (καταβαῖνον ὡς περιστερὰν). Such a depiction provides explanation of the physical nature of the Spirit, even if the specifications of “like a dove” cannot be fully explained.39 With Calvin, we rest comfortably saying that the Spirit appeared “under the form of a dove,” that is, “a sure and infallible sign of the presence of the Spirit.”40 That the Spirit was connected to God is made clear by the description of the Spirit descending “from heaven” (ἐξ οὐρανοῦ).41

The Spirit did not merely descend toward Jesus but also “remained upon him” (ἔμεινεν ἐπ’ αὐτόν). The verb, “remained” (ἔμεινεν), is best understood as a consummative (or perfective) aorist, which implies the result is permanent.42 The combination of “the Spirit descending like a dove” and “remaining upon him” are best understood as reflecting Isaiah 11:2 (“The Spirit of the LORD will rest upon him”). The link between Isaiah 11 and v. 32 is duly noted in early Christian writings.43 Full and permanent possession of the Spirit was taken to be the distinctive characteristic of the messiah. The stress of the scene is that the Spirit descended and remained upon him. The importance of the sign is not to be missed. The early church preached that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power” (Acts 10:38). This is what John the Baptist saw. The Baptist serves as a prophetic-apostolic witness who was able to see truly “the visible occurrence and the invisible truth . . . set side by side.”44 The Baptist is not Elijah or the Prophet, and is certainly not the Christ; rather, he is the one who sees and points, the one who understands in order to testify to what he has seen. He is nothing more, for nothing more is needed. Once the Spirit descends “upon him,” all attention has moved appropriately from the witness to his subject matter.

1:33 “And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man upon whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, he is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit’ ” (κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν, ἀλλ’ ὁ πέμψας με βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν, Ἐφ’ ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον ἐπ’ αὐτόν, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ). After repeating his statement that until the time of the descent of the Spirit he did not know him, the Baptist gives an account for his ability to recognize the “Coming One” by means of the Spirit. Like a prophet who receives a “word from the Lord,” the Baptist explains that his commission from God45 also included a clue to the identity of the one to whom he would witness: the descending Spirit. No mention of the dove is made in this explanation. The purpose of the explanation serves primarily to give warrant to the Baptist’s recognition of the “Coming One,” but it also serves to implicate God as the primary actor. It had always been God who had been working behind the ministry of the Baptist (see comments on 1:6). From this point onward even the ministry of Jesus is defined not merely by his own historical person or even by his own divine attributes, but by the activities of the Father and the Spirit.

Not only does the Spirit’s witness eclipse the witness of the Baptist but Jesus’s baptism eclipses the baptism of the Baptist. John explains regarding the one upon whom the Spirit descends and remains: “He is the one who baptizes” (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων). The Baptist is not just inferior to the person of Jesus; his baptism is inferior to the baptism of Jesus. The substantival participle, “the one who baptizes” (ὁ βαπτίζων), describes Jesus the way John “the Baptist” is traditionally described.46 It is highly significant that John, unlike the Synoptics, never calls John “the Baptist,” even though we have used that qualifier. For the Gospel of John, only Jesus is the Baptist. And true baptism can only be performed with the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the one who baptizes, and he will do so “with the Holy Spirit” (ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ). The preposition is best translated as “with” or “by means of,” for the Spirit is not merely a gift Jesus bestows (cf. 20:22) but the nexus of his messianic ministry.47

The unification of Jesus and the Spirit connects the promises of God in the Old Testament to the person and ministry of Jesus and the Spirit. Jesus is “the coming Davidic king” upon whom the Lord promised to pour out his Spirit (Isa 11:1–9); he is the servant/elect one upon whom God will put his Spirit (Isa 42:1); he is the prophet who announces, “The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor” (Isa 61:1). The Spirit is the sign of the promised age, a time when God’s people would have the Spirit poured out on them (Ezek 36:25–26), resulting in a cleansing with water. The descent of the Spirit upon Jesus was simultaneously an attestation of who Jesus is and an announcement that the promised age of the Spirit had dawned.48 This is what the Baptist (now in a qualified sense) was sent to reveal to Israel.

1:34 “And I have seen and I have borne witness that he is the Son of God” (κἀγὼ ἑώρακα, καὶ μεμαρτύρηκα ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ). The pericope concludes with the Baptist’s declaration, made emphatic with two perfect-tense verbs, that he has physically seen and judicially and prophetically given testimony regarding the one to whom he was to serve as a forerunner. And this is what the Lord said through the Baptist, “He is the Son of God” (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ). The use of “he” (οὗτός), now common to the reader, continues to emphasize the one to whom he points. The announcement is that Jesus is the Son of God (on this title, see comments on 1:49).

A textual variant plagues this announcement. Although the external evidence strongly supports “the Son” (ὁ υἱὸς), the internal evidence is often taken to argue in favor of “the elect/chosen one” (ὁ ἐκλεκτός).49 As suggestive as the internal evidence favoring the reading of “the elect one” is, it is difficult to deny the age and diversity of witnesses that favor the reading of “the Son.”50 But even more, “the Son” also finds internal agreement with the theological terminology of the Gospel. The designation “the Son of God” not only fits the immediate context but is formative in John from start to finish, beginning with the careful description of the “unique Son” (1:14) and ending with the purpose of the Gospel (20:31). For this reason it is also appropriate that John, the first eyewitness of Jesus recorded in the Gospel, should also be the first to identify Jesus as “the Son of God,” the same title the author wants all readers to recognize and confess.

Theology in Application

After the prologue, the Fourth Gospel introduces the arrival of the Word, Jesus Christ, into the historical context of the first century. All four Gospels begin with the ministry of John the Baptist, who is described as a forerunner who announces the person and ministry of Jesus. But the Baptist is displayed differently in John’s Gospel, giving a more emphatic prophetic-apostolic witness to Jesus. The Baptist introduces Jesus not merely to Israel but to the world—even to the reader of the Gospel. It is through the self-effacement of the one who offered “renewal cleansings” that our attention is drawn to the one who can truly cleanse and renew.

The Nature of Human Religion

Jesus was introduced by the Baptist in a religious context that was confused, self-righteous, and self-determined. The grace of God given to the Jews (to us!) had been diluted and demeaned in such a way that they had become the self-declared and self-righteous judges of religious identity and activity. The Baptist’s prophetic message speaks past their religious traditions and man-made authority structures by denying emphatically the concepts and structures they impose on his message. The reason for this is clear: it was not the Baptist’s message but the message of God; it was the “word of the Lord.” This word, however, was his definitive “Word,” the last and culminating message from a gracious God. Would the Jewish leaders, Israel, and the world listen to this witness?

The church is so founded in the work and person of Christ and is so aware of its corporate testimony of sin and darkness that it is intentionally self-critical regarding its practices and postures. The origin of the church is, by definition, found in freedom from self-righteousness and is now founded solely upon the righteousness of Christ. The church is, however, not different by nature from the Jewish leaders, Israel, or the world; the church is only different in Christ, in the grace received, and in the righteousness it is empowered only now to express.

God Is the Primary Actor

It was not just the prologue that displayed the creative “coming” of God to the world; the beginning of the narrative proper displays a similar activity as the Son of God enters the historical scene. The entire ministry of the Baptist begins (cf. 1:6 “came,” ἐγένετο) and ends (v. 33) with God, who is working behind the scenes to make himself known. He is the primary actor and stage director, with a plot that is driven forward by his actions and his identity. Made emphatic is God’s self-disclosure, which he reveals to the Baptist (v. 33) so that the Baptist might reveal him to Israel and the world. We, like the Baptist, would not know him if it were not for “the one who sent me . . . told me” (v. 33). This is not human religion; it is a God who acts without being asked and without being wanted, receiving nothing in return but what is already owed him. This is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The church narrates God to the world. The ease with which a person puts himself or herself at the center, or his or her experiences as the plumb line, is the archenemy of the church. God and God alone is the primary actor in the world and the primary subject matter of the church’s message. The church lives its life in and for God through Jesus Christ and serves as an ambassador to the world for God, announcing his message of grace and proclaiming his coming judgment. The church knows and proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. All things are defined in, by, and through Christ.

The Nature of Christian Witness

The message of the Baptist is a message of humble recognition of God. The Baptist, like Isaiah the prophet, is only able to cry out in self-disgust (cf. Isa 6:5). The message of the Baptist is a message of self-effacement. The Baptist is neither the true witness nor the one who can truly offer baptism, for God himself creates the witness and provides the true baptism (v. 33). It is for this reason the Fourth Gospel never called John “the Baptist,” for he was merely the first Christian witness to the true Baptist.

The witness of the church is, therefore, like the Baptist, entirely and necessarily expendable. Unlike human religion, a Christian witness is a self-effacer who has seen God and can only muster, “Woe is me!” A true Christian witness is less than a servant; he or she is a self-proclaimed slave to Christ (v. 27). Like the Baptist we can only speak an emphatic “No!” regarding ourselves (vv. 20–21), but can declare an emphatic “Yes!” regarding the “revelation” we have been told (v. 31): Jesus is the Lamb, the Son of God.

The Trinitarian God

From the very beginning of the arrival of the Son of God, the Father and Spirit were present and active. The Gospel of John is Trinitarian from the start. The very first verse of the Gospel centers upon the persons of God, Father and Son (1:1). Even more, it is the Son that makes the Father known (1:18), and the Son is accompanied by the empowering Spirit (v. 32). The Gospel story moves beyond Abraham and his son to God the Father and his Son. This Greco-Roman biography is ultimately about the “life” (βίος) of the Trinitarian God.

The church is emphatically Trinitarian. When the church prays, it prays to the Father, through the Son, and by the power of the Spirit. When the church serves, it serves in the power of the Spirit, through the Son, and to the glory of the Father. Just as John and the rest of the Gospels focus on Christ, so also Christ in all four Gospels focuses on God. To be Christocentric, therefore, is to be theocentric, that is, Trinitarian. The church is Trinitarian from start to finish.

Jesus the Lamb of God and Son of God

The moment Jesus arrives on the scene he is immediately introduced by the Baptist with a title of redemption: “The Lamb of God” (v. 29). Although the exact nature of the metaphor is complex and undefined, its deep roots in the Old Testament (Passover lamb, the “lamb” of Isa 53, daily sacrifices, and the lamb God provided to Abraham in Gen 22:8) and in the New Testament (the triumphant lamb of Revelation) make certain that this Lamb removes sin. The Baptist announces as much when he describes the Lamb as “the one who takes away the sin of the world.” This is a unique Lamb. The reason is clear: he is also the “unique Son” of God. The collective imagery of the Lamb of God and the Son of God, along with the accompanying Spirit, gives the overt impression that Jesus’s person and actions are priestly in nature and function. God offered the Son that he did not demand from Abraham (Gen 22), and he offered the Lamb that no shepherd could offer.

The message of the church is Christ crucified, foolishness and a stumbling block to the world (1 Cor 1:23), but grace and truth to the children of God. The church is only the church because of a crucified God, and it finds honor in what the world considers shame. The church then finds in Jesus not merely a brother but also a high priest, through whom God is accessed and sin atoned for. The church lives in the grace of God through Christ, and worships the only one who is worthy, a slain Lamb (Rev 5).