them, and baptized (ch 4:2). 23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim (1 Sam 9:4), because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized (Matt 3:5-6; ch 4:1-2). 24 For John was not yet cast into prison (matt 4:12; 14:3; Mark 1:14; 6:17; Luke 3:20). 25 Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. 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. 27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven ch 19:11; 1 Cor 4:7; 2 Cor 3:5;Heb 5:4; Jas 1:7). 28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ (ch 1:20, 23, 27; Luke 3:15), but that I am sent before him (Mal 3:1; Mark 1:2; Luke 1:17). 29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom (Marr 22:2; 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-27; Rev 21:9): 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 (Song 5:1; Matt 9:15; ch 5:11; 17:13). 30 He must increase, but I must decrease (2 Sam 3:1).
¶3:22-24 In v22 Jesus is said to be baptizing, however ch 4:2 adds an editorial that it was His disciples who actually baptized as Jesus’ representatives (in His behalf). This is the best documentation concerning Jesus on baptism before the Great Commission (Matt 28:19; Mk 16:16; Lk 24:47). This is important to establish Jesus’ position on water baptism, especially so, when it is observed that the water baptism element of the Great Commission is questioned by many credible scholars. Even though, here, the N.T. records that both Jesus and John were baptizing disciples at the same time, later, after the birth of the Church (Pentecost A.D. 30) John’s disciples were required to be re-baptized in the name of Jesus (Act 19:1-7). 3:23, Aenon near Salim, ~ This area is thought to be in Samaria. Possibly about eight miles south of Scythopolis (beth-shean), west of the Jordan. There is a reference to Shalim in 1 Samuel 9:4. 3:25, A question … about purifying. ~ The Baptist’s ministry began in the region around the Qumran community; this has lead some scholars to suppose he had connection with that community. We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that some Jews were deeply interested in achieving ceremonial purification. So, this “question about … purifying” may be an allusion to a Qumran perspective on purification vs the Baptist's view, or even the traditional Jewish one. However, the context of the question on purifying, here, is water baptism. The Jewish mikvah cleansed the physical person, making him ceremonially clean. The water baptism brought by John and Christ was for repentance and a far deeper purification. The Apostle Peter explains the difference between the Jewish mikvah and Christian baptism in 1 Peter 3:21, “,… even baptism, doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, …” I.e. the mikvah purifies the flesh, Christian baptism purifies the conscience (soul). Christian baptism has such power and authority “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” 3:26, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, … all men come to him. ~ The disciples of John knew that he had born witness concerning Jesus, and yet, out of their love for their teacher, they were envious of Jesus’ success. Human nature remains the same, even today. In the Lord’s Church one ministry sends out other ministers and wishes them well, however, when the apostolates achieve success there is too often envy, even jealousy, from the sending ministry. Far too often, we want our disciples to shine, but not brighter than us. 3:27, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from God. ~ These words are true of both Jesus and John (and of everyone). Both had what God had given them, so there was no place for envy. 3:28, I said, I am not the Christ, but … I am sent before him. ~ Here, the Baptist is referencing what the Evangelist recored in ch 1:20-28 (v23, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias”.). The Baptist’s statement: “I am sent before him”, references Isaiah 40:3, “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God”. The Baptist was not the Christ, but was, indeed, the forerunner of the Christ: as Yahweh proclaimed in Malachi 3:1, “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts”. It should be noted, at this point, that the One for whom the “messenger” (John the Baptist) was to prepare the way, was Yahweh; Who, in Malachi 3:1, references Himself as “me”: the single personal pronouns “my” and “me” are antecedents to “saith the LORD of hosts”. In the King James Version of the Bible when the word LORD appears in all uppercase letters it is the tetragrammaton, i.e. YHWH (the four letters that stand for the name Yahweh). Why is this point important? Because the “messenger” actually prepared the way for the Messiah (Christ), I.e. Jesus. This is an undeniable proof, not only of the pre-existence of Jesus, but, also, that the Christ of the N.T. is, in very fact, the Yahweh of the O.T. Furthermore, included in the Song of Zacharias (Lk 1:69-79), is v76, where the father of the Baptist states, “And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways”. Here, Zacharias has both Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1 in view. Moreover, when speaking of the coming Christ (Messiah), the O.T. Prophet Micah writes that His existence has been from eternity; he writes it this way in Micah 5:2, “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting”. A third prophetic voice from the O.T. concerning the promised Messiah (Christ) which identifies Him as Yahweh, in human form, is Isaiah 9:6, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace”. 3:29, Friend of the bridegroom. ~ John the Baptist’s testimony: Jesus is portrayed as the Bridegroom and his disciples as the Bride. (See Matt 9:15 and the parable of Matt 22:1-14, also, see Matt 25:1-3 and Rev 18:23 - Jesus references Himself as the Bridegroom.) The theme, introduced, here, by John, is continued throughout the N.T. (Matt 22:3ff; Luke 12:36; Matt 25:1-13; Rev 19:7; 21:2, 9; 22:17). John’s reference to loosing the shoe of Christ (ch1:27) is a reference to the redemption of an inheritance and/or a bride by a kinsman (Ruth 4:6-12; see Deut 25:9-10). In the Hebrew Bible, a form of levirate (brother-in-law) marriage, called yibbum, is mentioned in Deuteronomy 25:5–10, under which the brother of a man who dies without children is permitted and encouraged to marry the widow. Either of the parties may refuse to go through with the marriage, but both must go through a ceremony, known as halizah, involving a symbolic act of renunciation of a yibbum marriage. The symbol involved is the removing of the shoe of the kinsman who refused the marriage. There is a beautiful picture of this in the story of Ruth and Boaz (Ruth 4:6-12). The next of kin to Elimelech (Naomi’s dead husband) refused to redeem the inheritance which included marriage to Ruth the Moabitess, pulled off his shoe and gave it to Boaz, who redeemed both the inheritance and Ruth. In this O.T. narrative Boaz and Ruth are a foreshadowing of Christ and the Church. When the Baptist states, in ch 1:27, that he was not worthy to unloose the shoe of Christ he was declaring that Jesus, not himself, was the true Redeemer of the inheritance (earth) and the Bride (the Church). In this sense, the Baptist would be saying that Jesus was the true Son to inherit the Messianic Kingdom and he was not worthy to take His shoe, i.e. receive the inheritance himself. It is very likely that the Evangelist takes pain to record this saying of the Baptist because of the disciples of John who were going about proclaiming him to have been the Messiah. (See Ruth 4:7 cf Amos 2:6; 8:6.) The Baptist affirmed that he was not the Bridegroom, that he could not take the shoe from the true “Kinsman Redeemer” (Deut 25:9-10). Instead, he was the “Friend of the Bridegroom”.
Apostolically Speaking,
Bp. J. L. Hayes, D.D.
"The Gospel According to John, An Introduction"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-gospel-according-to-john.html
"Prologue To John's Gospel, 1:1-18, (Part I)"
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2016/05/john-and-logos.html
"Prologue To John's Gospel, 1:1-18 (Part II)"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2016/05/prologue-to-johns-gospel-11-18-part-ii.html
"The Baptist Witnesses Of Himself, 1:19-28"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-baptist-witnesses-of-himself.html
"The Baptist Witnesses Of Christ, 1:29-34"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-baptist-witnesses-to-christ.html
"The First Disciples, 1:35-51"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-first-disciples.html
"The Wedding of Cana, 2:1-11"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-wedding-at-cana.html
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4EXSWA2A47ARC
No comments:
Post a Comment