The Witness of John the Baptist to the Word: John 1:6-9

By David J. MacLeod

David J. MacLeod is Chairman of the Division of Biblical Studies, Emmaus Bible College, Dubuque, Iowa, and Associate Editor of The Emmaus Journal.

This is article three in a six-part series, “The Living Word in John 1:1–18.”

Nineteenth-century Bible teacher A. T. Pierson used to say, “Witnessing is the whole work of the whole church for the whole age.” He added, “A light that does not shine, a spring that does not flow, a germ that does not grow, is no more of an anomaly than a life in Christ which does not witness to Christ.”[1] Another well-known minister of the Word, Stephen F. Olford, wrote, “Something is wrong—terribly wrong. The rank and file in the body of Christ today are not witnessing Christians.”[2] The late James M. Boice has said that it is wrong for contemporary believers to think that witnessing is to be done primarily by paid clergy. “Witnessing is every Christian’s job.”[3]

The view that witnessing is “every Christian’s job” was certainly the belief of the early Christians. Their acceptance of this task was perhaps the single most important factor in the astounding outreach and expansion of the early church. It was not simply that Peter, Paul, Stephen, and others spread the good news of salvation in Christ. It was rather that all Christians—small and great, rich and poor, slaves and freedmen—made it their consuming passion to tell others about the Lord.

Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165) wrote, “For there is not one single race of men, whether barbarians, or Greeks, or whatever they may be called, nomads, or vagrants, or herdsmen living in tents, among whom prayers and giving of thanks are not offered through the name of the crucified Jesus.”[4] Tertullian (A.D. 160-225) said to his pagan contemporaries, “We are but of yesterday, and we have filled every place among you—cities, islands, fortresses, towns, market-places, the very camp, tribes, companies, palace, senate, forum—we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods.”[5]

How did this happen? “It became the most sacred duty of a new convert to diffuse among his friends and relations the inestimable blessing which he had received.”[6] As Harnack wrote, “We cannot hesitate to believe that the great mission of Christianity was in reality accomplished by means of informal missionaries.”[7]

The main work of witnessing was done not in the formal atmosphere of church meetings but in the informal settings of day-to-day living—in the marketplace, in the shop, in the living room, or over a meal in a hospitable home. And it was done not by the clergy. There was no clergy class for a century or so after the apostolic era. Witnessing was carried out by ordinary believers.

John 1:6–9 presents a portrait of John the Baptist that conveys what a witness should be. With his self-denying attitude, his Christ-centered message, and his goal of winning his hearers to personal faith in the Savior, regardless of their condition or attitude, John is a role model of what a Christian witness should be.[8]

The Identification of the Witness (v. 6)[9]

Two observations need to be made at the outset of this study. First, a new paragraph begins at verse 6, [10] as suggested by a change in the literary style of the verses.[11] Up to this point the apostle John had been reciting the lines of a hymn that reminded his readers that the true beginnings of the wonderful life of Christ “are lost in the timeless and Eternal life of God.”[12] Now John inserted a brief narrative section[13] to describe the arrival of the eternal Word among humanity. The apostle John was concerned not simply to state timeless truths. He wanted to show how these truths are anchored in human history.[14]

Second, as noted earlier in this series of articles, John was presenting a Christian worldview in his prologue. Verses 1–5 set forth the deity of Christ, His creation of the world, and His role as the agent of all divine revelation. Verses 6–9 add another element to the Christian worldview.

Trites has described John’s Gospel as a “lawsuit” between Jesus Christ and the world.[15] In John’s day many worldviews vied for followers: polytheism, philosophy, mystery religions, incipient Gnosticism, and Judaism. The claim that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the only way to God and eternal life was widely disputed.

In that environment the apostle prepared what might be called a lawyer’s brief, advancing arguments and presenting witnesses for the Christian case. To fail to provide evidence for the Christian position would be tantamount to conceding defeat to its opponents. John set forth credible, material witnesses to the truth, witnesses to the historicity and factuality of spiritual realities. In verses 6–9 (and vv. 19–36) the first witness is brought to testify.

He Was Commissioned by God

“There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.” The apostle John did not add the epithet “the Baptist,” or “the Baptizer,” as the Synoptics writers commonly did (e.g., Matt. 3:1; Mark 1:4; Luke 7:20).[16] This is interesting in that John usually distinguished people who had the same name, such as Judas (John 6:71; 13:2; 14:22), Mary (11:2; 19:25), and Joseph (19:38). Yet the apostle did not add the description, “the Baptist,” even though another John was prominent in Jesus’ life, namely, John the son of Zebedee. He did not need the fuller description because he never mentioned the other John by name. The traditional explanation is that the writer of the fourth Gospel is the other John, and he consistently referred to himself in an oblique way.[17]

The importance of John the Baptist may be gleaned from the Lord’s statement in Matthew 11:11: “Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist.” In all three Synoptic Gospels the record of Jesus’ public ministry is introduced by an account of the ministry of John the Baptist (Matt. 3:1; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:1–3). In the Book of Acts the Baptist’s ministry is mentioned in public addresses by Peter (Acts 10:37) and Paul (13:24–25). When the apostles were picking a successor for the vacancy left by Judas Iscariot, one of the requirements was that he be one “of the men who have accompanied us … beginning with the baptism of John” (1:21–22). The apostle was faithful to this pattern and included all the essential elements in Jesus’ life, including the ministry of John the Baptist.[18]

Jewish historian Josephus wrote more about John the Baptist than he did about Jesus.[19] John was the epitome of what was revered by the Jews. By birth he was a priest (Luke 1:5), by divine appointment he was a Nazarite and morally strict (v. 15), and by calling he was a prophet (3:2). Because of this he had a wide though short-lived popularity with the Jewish hierarchy (Matt. 21:25; John 5:33).[20]

John the Baptist was a charismatic figure. Droves of people went out to hear him (Mark 1:4–5). Morgan describes his ministry as attractive, convictive, and invective.[21] According to Luke 16:16 he was the last of the Old Testament prophets. His was a transitional work, marking the dawn of a new era.

The other evangelists all gave fuller details of the Baptist’s background and activities. They described his rugged, Elijah-like demeanor and dress. “Now John himself had a garment of camel’s hair and a leather belt about his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey” (Matt. 3:4; cf. 2 Kings 1:8). They saw in John the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa. 40:3–4) of one who would prepare the way for the Triumphal Entry of the Lord (Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4). They told of his work of baptizing people as they repented of their sins and awaited the dawning of the kingdom of heaven on the earth. They recorded that Jesus Himself came to be baptized by John—not to repent of any sins, but to identify with the nation as it awaited the messianic age.

John the Evangelist mentioned none of this background information, even though he dwelt on the Baptist and his message more than the other evangelists and was once one of John’s disciples who had himself been pointed to Christ by the Baptist (John 1:35–37).[22] The apostle John was interested in writing about John the Baptist solely because of his role as a witness to Christ.

The importance of John the Baptist is underscored by the phrase ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ (“sent from God,” v. 6). The word ἀποστέλλω was used in classical Greek of an authorized emissary. In the Septuagint it is a technical term for the sending of a messenger with a special task. It is used in John’s Gospel in this technical sense of authorized messengers (cf. vv. 19, 22). In the case of John and later Jesus the word is used of messengers with a divine task and divine authorization (v. 6; 5:36–37).[23] People were excited about the Baptist’s ministry because he, with a divine commission, was the first prophet for four hundred years. Jesus too was sent from God (3:17), but there is a distinct difference. John was a prophet, sent like Moses (Exod. 3:10–15) and other prophets (e.g., Isa. 6:8), whereas Jesus is the incarnate λόγος or Word.[24]

He Was Contrasted with the Logos

The contrast between John and the λόγος is seen by examining two verbs and two nouns.[25] The Greek verb ἐγένετο, translated “came” in verse 6, might be rendered more literally “came into being.” But speaking of the λόγος, John wrote in verse 1, “the Word was” (ἦν). This verb suggests timeless, eternal existence. In verse 6 John is said to be a man (ἄνθρωπος), but in verse 1 the λόγος is God. John the Baptist had a commission from God, but the Word of whom he spoke—Jesus Christ—is God incarnate.

The Intention of His Ministry (v. 7)

His Mission was to Be a Witness about the Light

In verse 7 the Evangelist turned from John’s commission to his actual work. He came “for witness” or “for testimony” (εἰς μαρτυρίαν).[26] The word “witness” introduces one of the key concepts in the Fourth Gospel. In classical Greek the word is used of a person at a trial who spoke from personal experience about actions in which he took part or about persons and actions known to him. In the Septuagint the word is again used in a legal sense of a person who bore witness before a judgment was made, especially a witness for the prosecution (e.g., Num. 5:13; 35:30; Deut. 17:6–7; 19:15). One fundamental principle of Jewish law was that at least two witnesses were required to establish any charge (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15).[27] A witness committed himself to the truthfulness of something. In modern courts a witness takes a preliminary oath binding himself to his testimony. To be a witness is to act as a guarantor that something is true.[28] John the Baptist came forth as the first witness to testify concerning the Light.

The Gospel of John records seven witnesses to Jesus Christ, all using this juridical language.[29] First, there is the witness of John the Baptist (John 1:7–8; 5:33). Second, there is the witness of God the Father to Jesus’ claims. “And the Father who sent me, He has testified of Me” (5:37). Third, there is the witness of Jesus Himself. “Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true” (8:14; cf. 3:32). Such self-witness would not have much impact in human courtrooms (5:31); yet when the believer comes to know and believe Christ’s heavenly origin, it is more than enough.

Fourth, the Holy Spirit bears witness to Christ. “The Spirit of truth … will testify about Me” (15:26). Jesus spoke of the time when He would return to heaven and people could no longer hear His own witness; then the Holy Spirit would testify. One writer has said that the world can never get away from “that strange man upon the cross.”[30] This is because of the Holy Spirit’s convicting testimony (16:8–11).

Fifth, the works of Christ witness of Him. He said, “The very works that I do testify about Me” (5:36). In reporting seven miraculous signs performed by Christ (2:1–11; 4:46–54; 5:1–9; 6:1–14; 16–21; 9:1–41; 11:1–46) the apostle John’s purpose was twofold: to convince his readers that Jesus is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament, and to convince his readers that Jesus is in fact the Son of God (20:30–31).

Sixth, the Old Testament Scriptures bear witness to Christ. “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me” (5:39). Seventh, there is the testimony of other human witnesses—ordinary people who met and were changed by Christ. These include the Samaritan woman who knew little, but told what she knew (4:39), the crowd that had witnessed the raising of Lazarus from the dead (12:17), the twelve disciples who knew Christ intimately (15:27), and the “beloved disciple,” the author of this Gospel, who was an eyewitness of His death (19:35).

The testimony of John the Baptist is recorded in 1:19–34. In verse 23 he quoted from Isaiah 40:3, asserting that he was preparing for the coming of the Messiah. He testified that Christ is the sacrificial Lamb, who would take away people’s sins (v. 29). He rightly anticipated the sacrificial aspect of Christ’s work. He testified that although he was older than Jesus by several months (Luke 1:24–26), Jesus existed before Him (John 1:30), thus affirming Christ’s preexistence. John the Baptist said that initially he did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah (vv. 32–33). Then God told him that when he saw the Holy Spirit come on a man, he would know that He is the Messiah. John said he saw the Spirit descend on Jesus (at His baptism, Matt. 3:16). He comprehended the arrival of a new era, the era of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Then John the Baptist bore witness that Jesus is the Son of God (v. 34).[31]

By these seven witnesses the apostle wanted his readers to take what he wrote as reliable. He insisted there was good evidence for what he wrote down.[32]

His Mission was to be an Instrument of Belief

In John’s Gospel the concept of witness or testimony is inseparable from that of faith.[33] John the Baptist’s testimony was given in order to lead people to faith in the Light, Jesus Christ. It is noteworthy that John did not use the word “repent,” the principal term linked to John’s message in the other Gospels (Matt. 3:2; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3).[34] The verb μετανοέω means “to change one’s mind.”[35] One might prefer a better English word than “repent,” because it is derived from the Latin word paeniteo, “to make sorry.”[36] The emphasis of the Greek word, however, is not on feelings but on the mind or purpose of the individual who repents. John did not call on his listeners to feel sorry for their sins,[37] but to change their minds or attitudes toward their sins and the salvation God was bringing through the Messiah.[38] Many see in John’s message of repentance a direct connection with the message of the Old Testament prophets who urged Israel to return to God from their sinful condition (Isa. 55:7; Ezek. 33:11, 15; Joel 2:12).[39]

Instead of the verb μετανοέω the apostle used the verb πιστεύω. He used it about a hundred times, that is, with nine times the frequency with which it is used by the Synoptics.[40] The verb means “to believe,” that is, to take the witness at his word.[41] John 1:7 does not mention the object of belief; instead it refers to the witness. Later in the Gospel it becomes clear that people are to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. John and others brought testimony about Christ, and people are to believe that testimony.

Something remarkable is suggested in the phrase “that all might believe” (ἵνα πάντες πιστεύσωσιν). John was the first to give testimony, and that testimony has been fruitful. His testimony is recorded in all four Gospels, so John still bears witness. Like Abel, “though he is dead, he still speaks” (Heb. 11:4). All (πάντες) who have come to faith are indirectly dependent on his testimony.[42]

The Insignificance of His Person (v. 8)

The Limitations of John’s Person

As great as John the Baptist was, he was insignificant in comparison with the Light itself. Using the demonstrative pronoun (ἐκεῖνος)[43] for emphasis, the apostle wrote, “He was not the light.” Later Jesus called John ὁ λύχνος (“the lamp,” 5:35), but he was not the light (τὸ φῶς). John, of course, knew that.

He lived in a time of great messianic expectation. The Jewish nation awaited the coming One, the Anointed of God, the Christ, the great Deliverer. Christ would be preceded by Elijah (Mal. 4:5–6). The people also awaited the great prophet promised in the days of Moses (Deut. 18:15, 18). With his initial following it would have been easy for John, if ambition had motivated him, to claim to be one of these great figures.

When a delegation went out to question John, he flatly asserted that he was not the Messiah or Elijah or “the Prophet.” He was only a “voice” pointing to another. “It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie” (John 1:27). “He must increase, but I must decrease” (3:30).

When Jesus came, John’s best and most promising disciples left (1:35–37). John did not despise Jesus for this, and for three reasons. First, John was in tune with the Holy Spirit from childhood (Luke 1:41–44), and he trusted God. Second, John saw that in Jesus there was something he did not possess. Third, he had the grace to know that it did not matter who did the work, so long as it got done.[44]

Some people, however, continued to wonder if he was the Messiah (John 3:15), viewing John as a more important figure than Jesus.[45] “For some clung so tightly to him,” says Calvin, “that they disregarded Christ. Just as a man, overcome at the sight of dawn, would not deign to look at the sun.”[46] Later Paul ran across a group who knew only John’s baptism (Acts 19:1–7), and Apollos (18:25) also was introduced as one who knew only John’s baptism.[47]

At the end of the first century and the beginning of the second, a sect called the Hemerobaptists (ἡμεροβαπτισταὶ, literally, “daily-bathers”) had developed. They held up John as a rival Messiah to Jesus. He was no longer the forerunner to the Messiah; he was the Messiah Himself.[48] A later sect, the Mandaens, venerated John, and viewed Jesus as a false Messiah.[49] The Clementine literature of the early third century speaks of disciples of John who viewed him as the Christ.[50] It may be that when the Fourth Gospel was written, there were followers of John who were forming a kind of “John the Baptist sect” that gave John an unbiblical role.[51] This may be the reason the Evangelist was so emphatic in affirming, “That one was not the light.”[52]

The Greatness of John’s Function

Having asserted the Baptist’s subordination to the Son of God—a subordination he gladly embraced—the apostle again affirmed the greatness of John’s function. He was a witness to the Light. In bearing witness to Christ John stood against a host of worldviews both ancient and modern. Church history is a record of the obsession of false teachers to “create” other Christs and other gospels. In the early centuries there were the Docetists, Arians, Eutychians, Gnostics, and others, and in the modern period there are the Socinians, Unitarians, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and members of the Jesus Seminar. In addition a large number of avatars, religious gurus, and New Age advocates trumpet new messages and new messiahs. John the Baptist differs from them all.[53] First, he was a true prophet of God, one “sent from God” (John 1:6). Second, he did not seek to inflate his own role, nor did he seek to change or replace Christ. Instead, he came to “testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him” (v. 7).

The Content of His Testimony (v. 9)

The Light of Jesus Christ is True

Verse 9 is something of a summary of what John was saying. “There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.” He spoke of the incarnation of Christ, the subject of the next strophes in the Logos hymn.[54] The structure of verse 9 is somewhat awkward and is therefore much discussed in commentaries. The points John made are nevertheless relatively clear. When Jesus Christ came, He came like a light in the dark.[55] His coming dissipated the shadows of doubt. Furthermore His coming dissipated the shadows of despair. Seneca, first-century Roman philosopher and playwright, said, “Men are conscious of their helplessness in necessary things,” and “they hate their sins but cannot leave them.” Also Jesus’ coming dissipated the darkness of death, which the ancient world feared. At best it was annihilation; at worst it was torture by the gods. But by His death and resurrection Jesus made death the doorway to a better existence.

᾿Αληθινός can mean either “true” or “genuine.”[56] The opposite might therefore be either what is false or what is merely imperfect. In other words Christ is the true Light in contrast to all false lights, that is, idols and non-Christian worldviews.[57] These false lights people followed were lights that left doubts about God, fears about death, and despair about life after death.[58]

Also He is the true Light in contrast to what is imperfect or shadowy. The Old Testament Law, for example, gave light, but it was incomplete. As the true light, Jesus is the genuine and ultimate self-disclosure of God the Father.[59]

The Light of Jesus Christ was About to be Manifested

The next part of verse 9 has been translated in a variety of ways. On the one hand the New King James Version reads, “That was the true light, which gives light to every man who comes into the world.”[60] In favor of this view is the fact that “all who come into the world” is a common rabbinic expression used to describe “every man.”[61] However, John did not use this expression elsewhere.

The New American Standard Bible, on the other hand, reads, “the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.”[62] This is preferable in that John often wrote of Jesus’ coming into the world (6:14; 11:27; 16:28; 18:37). The λόγος came to bring people light. The verb translated “coming” (a periphrastic construction, ἦν plus ἐρχόμενον) means “on the point of coming” or “in the very act of coming.”[63] As John began to preach, he knew that the Messiah was about to be manifested. When he baptized Jesus in the Jordan River sometime later and the Spirit came on Him, he knew that the Messiah had come.

Boice asks, “What was the greatest moment in the history of the world?” Many would say the discovery of the wheel or of fire. A historian might say it was the flowering of intellectual life in Greece in the fifth century B.C. A political scientist might argue for the establishment of civil law under the authority of the Romans. A physicist might refer to the discovery of atomic power or space flight. The only answer possible for a believer with a Christian worldview, however, is “the coming into human history of the Lord God Almighty in the person of Jesus Christ.”[64]

The Light of Jesus Christ will dispel the Darkness for All who Will Believe

This light came εἰς τὸν κόσμον (“into the world”). Here the term “world” speaks of “the divine creation, which has been shattered by the fall.”[65] It is the created order—especially human beings—in rebellion against God. “God’s love is to be admired not because the world is so big but because the world is so bad.”[66]

What did the apostle mean when he wrote that the Light ὅ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον (“enlightens every man”)? Some take the verb in its primary lexical force, “to shed light on, to make visible.”[67] The light shines on all for judgment to reveal what they are. Some flee from the light as their deeds are exposed. But others come to the light, embracing it, that is, the objective revelation of the truth in Jesus Christ.[68]

Others say the phrase refers to spiritual illumination.[69] Some take it in the sense of general revelation, that is, the light of nature that strips human beings of excuse (Rom. 1:20).[70] The spiritual illumination the apostle had in mind, however, is the light that dispels the darkness of sin and unbelief.[71] The thought is that Christ enlightens and saves all without distinction, that is, all kinds and classes of people.[72]

A possible variation of this view is illustrated by the paraphrase, “He enlightens everyone who is enlightened.” In 1938 the writer’s mother, then fresh out of college, began teaching school in the small Canadian fishing village of Baddeck, known to the outside world as the summer home of Alexander Graham Bell. She taught there for two years before her marriage to the writer’s father. In her one-room schoolhouse out in the country she taught pupils in grades one through twelve. If parents wanted a child taught, they brought him or her to the teacher. Yet she was the village teacher, whether the child came to school or not.[73]

Jesus Christ is the true Light that dispels the darkness. He is the One who gives light to those who receive Him. He is the One who forgives sin, although not all are forgiven. Although all are not justified, He is the One who justifies. The Lord Jesus Christ is “the true light which … enlightens every man.”

Conclusion

This section of John’s prologue has significance both theologically and practically. Theologically John’s worldview confronts false worldviews. Jesus Christ alone is the true agent of divine revelation—contrary to false agents of revelation from the first to the twenty-first centuries. Jesus’ role as the true Light assumes what John had already said in verse 5, namely, that the world is shrouded in darkness, that is, sin in all its manifestations—unbelief, rebellion, falsehood, hatred.

Verses 6–9 also have great value in reference to evangelism. John the Baptist is a role model of three things a witness for Christ should have.[74] Boice suggests that if these three points are followed, no matter how halting or weak one’s witness may be, it will be effective.[75] First, John had a self-denying attitude. An important principle of witnessing is that believers must not promote themselves. In John’s day spiritual gurus sought their own glory. But he rejected all temptations for personal glory. An effective witness for Christ puts aside his or her likes, dislikes, needs, personal interests, comfort zones, and ambitions.

Second, John had a Christ-centered message. A person’s witness must be given verbally about Jesus Christ. Unfortunately the present age may be called the era of silent Christianity. A young man went from a Christian home to a secular university. His parents were concerned about him. When he arrived home at Christmas his parents asked him anxiously, “How did you get along?” He answered, “Oh, I got along great. Nobody even knows I am a Christian.”[76] While friendship evangelism is important, it is not enough. The biblical concept of evangelism and witness involves presenting verbal testimony, a message with two parts: who Jesus is and what He has done.

Third, John had the goal of winning others to personal faith in Christ. He bore testimony so that people might believe. This third principle of witnessing means that believers must encourage the unsaved to respond to Christ, in hope that they will win them to the Savior. This is illustrated in John 1. John the Baptist gave his testimony to Andrew and John (later the apostle John) and they believed. Andrew in turn witnessed to Peter, and later Philip witnessed to Nathanael.

Missiologists have pointed out that often a foreign missionary, with little knowledge of the language or culture, wins the first convert of a tribe. Examples are Paul the Greek Jew who took the gospel to Asia Minor; Augustine, a Latin from Rome, who took the gospel to England; Boniface, an Englishman who took the gospel to Germany; Patrick, of a high family in Britain, who took the gospel to Ireland; Hudson Taylor, an Englishman, who took the good news to China; and Jim Elliot and other young Americans, who brought the message of Christ to the Aucas in Ecuador. Once the first member of the tribe or family has been won, however, he often wins the rest of his family or tribe to Christ. So it is in these wonderful stories of household salvation recorded in John 1.[77]

Effective witnessing calls for spending time with Jesus. Then the other things—knowing that believers are not the Light, pointing others to the Light, and urging people to believe the Light—these will come naturally.[78]

Notes

1. A. T. Pierson, quoted in Stephen F. Olford, “Does the Spirit Empower Your Witness?” Moody (March 1983), 17–19.
2. Ibid., 19.
3. James M. Boice, “Witnessing: The Progress of Revival,” Reformation & Revival Journal 2 (spring 1993): 29-44.
4. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 117, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962) 1:258. Cf. the skeptical comments in Adolf Harnack, The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, trans. J. Moffatt (1904–1905; reprint, New York: Books for Libraries, 1972), 2:173.
5. Tertullian, Apology 37, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 3:45.
6. Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. J. B. Bury (London: Methuen, 1909), 2:8.
7. Harnack, The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, 1:460.
8. Bruce Milne, The Message of John, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 42.
9. The outline used here is adapted from Paul O. Wright, “Except through Me” (unpublished manuscript, 1982), 57–60.
10. Rudolf Bultmann argued that with the exception of verses 6–8, 15, and 17, the prologue was originally a Gnostic writing used as a hymn by the Baptist community that viewed John as the incarnate λόγος (The Gospel of John, trans. and ed. George R. Beasley-Murray [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971], 17–18, 49). The Evangelist, Bultmann said, made use of the source hymn but displaced John and substituted Jesus. This thesis has been rightly rejected for a number of reasons: (1) The view is constructed from Mandaean texts that postdate the Gospel of John. It assumes that the extant writings (of the seventh and eighth centuries) reflect beliefs of the first or second centuries. (2) It assumes the early second-century existence of a Gnostic community. (3) It assumes that this early Gnostic community possessed a document like the Johannine prologue. (4) It assumes that this source hymn was sufficiently accessible for the author of the Fourth Gospel to have procured it and edited it for his own purposes. Cf. Edwyn Clement Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, ed. Francis Noel Davey (London: Faber and Faber, 1947), 144–45.
11. J. A. T. Robinson’s characterization of verses 6 and 15 as “rude interruptions” is an overstatement (“The Relation of the Prologue to the Gospel of St. John,” New Testament Studies 9 [1962-63]: 122).
12. J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, ed. A. H. McNeile, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1928), 1:7.
13. “The Evangelist interrupts his citation from the Logos hymn” (George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary [Waco, TX: Word, 1987], 11). “The allusive rhythmical character of the prologue now vanishes” (Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 144).
14. F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 34.
15. Allison A. Trites, The New Testament Concept of Witness, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 226.
16. Occasionally the Synoptic writers also used the simple name “John” to designate the Baptist (e.g., Matt. 11:2; Mark 2:18).
17. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 34–35; and D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 120. Frederick Louis Godet rejects the traditional view, arguing instead that the Evangelist omitted the descriptive epithet “the Baptist” because he knew John and it was more natural for him to designate him simply by his name (Commentary on the Gospel of John, trans. Timothy Dwight, 3d ed. [New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1893; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969], 1:256–57).
18. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 34.
19. Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 116–19.
20. Brooke Foss Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes (London: John Murray, 1908), 1:68–74.
21. G. Campbell Morgan, The Gospel according to Matthew (New York: Revell, 1929), 22.
22. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, 1:7; cf. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:256.
23. K. H. Rengstorf, “ἀποστέλλω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 398–406; cf. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 50 n. 2.
24. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 144.
25. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:11; and Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, New International Commentary on the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 78–79.
26. John came “for witness,” not “to be a witness.” The emphasis is on the activity and not the person (Morris, The Gospel according to John, 79 n. 53).
27. H. Strathmann, “μάρτυς,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 4 (1967), 476–85; and Trites, The New Testament Concept of Witness, 4–34.
28. Morris, The Gospel according to John, 80 n. 55.
29. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, 1:xc-xciii; C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 159; James Montgomery Boice, Witness and Revelation in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), 75–158; and William Barclay, The Gospel of John, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 1:51–53.
30. Father Tyrrell, quoted in Barclay, The Gospel of John, 1:51.
31. F. B. Meyer, John the Baptist (London: Morgan and Scott, n.d.), 82–86.
32. Morris, The Gospel according to John, 80.
33. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:257.
34. This is not to suggest that the apostle John rejected the notion of repentance. He came close to the idea when he spoke of the convicting work of the Holy Spirit (16:8–11).
35. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3d ed., ed. Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 640.
36. D. P. Simpson, Cassell’s Latin Dictionary (London: Cassell, 1968), 419.
37. J. Behm notes that in classical Greek if the change of mind derives from the recognition that one’s earlier view was evil, then μετανοέω can have the sense “to regret,” “to feel remorse,” or “to rue” (“μετανοέω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 4 [1967], 976–78).
38. Cf. S. Lewis Johnson Jr., “The Message of John the Baptist,” Bibliotheca Sacra 113 (January-March 1956): 31-32.
39. In these contexts the prophets used the word שׁוּב, “to go back again, to return.” The emphasis is more on returning to Yahweh than on turning from one’s sin, which is of course implied. Interestingly the Septuagint never uses μετανοέω for שׁוּב (E. Würthwein and J. Behm, “μετανοέω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 4 [1967], 984–55, 989).
40. Bernard, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:9.
41. Cf. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 159.
42. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 121; cf. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 51.
43. ᾿Εκεῖνος is usually emphatic in the Gospel of John (Bernard, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:9; and Morris, The Gospel according to John, 81 n. 58).
44. James S. Stewart, The Gates of New Life (New York: Scribners, 1940), 74–82.
45. Morris, The Gospel according to John, 77–78.
46. John Calvin, The Gospel according to John, trans. T. H. L. Parker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 1:14.
47. In light of John 3:22 Jerome Murphy-O’Connor argues that Apollos and the disciples of Acts 19 were Christians and that the baptism of John they had received was administered by Jesus (“John the Baptist and Jesus,” New Testament Studies 36 [1990]: 367).
48. J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (London: Macmillan, 1879; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 401–4; and Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:214, 258.
49. Oscar Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, trans. S. C. Guthrie and C. A. M. Hall, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 26–30.
50. Recognitions of Clement 54, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 8:92; and The Clementine Homilies 2.17, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 8:232.
51. One must admit that the question of a Baptist sect in the first century is speculative. J. A. T. Robinson concluded, “I cannot find a shred of reliable historical evidence for them at the time” (“Elijah, John, and Jesus: An Essay in Detection,” New Testament Studies 4 [1957-1958]: 278-79).
52. Cf. Charles H. H. Scobie, John the Baptist (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964), 187–202.
53. Tal Brooke, “Jesus and the Den of Thieves,” SCP Journal 20 (1996): 6-7.
54. Scholars who detect a hymn in John’s prologue disagree over whether verse 9 belongs to the explanatory comment that begins in verse 6 or whether it belongs to the next strophe of the hymn. Among those who argue that verse 9 is not part of the poetry of the prologue are Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, 1:7; and Brown, The Gospel according to John, 1:9. Those who make verse 9 part of a strophe extending from verse 9 to verse 11 or 12 are Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 48; Haenchen, John 1, 116–117; and Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:249.
55. Barclay, The Gospel of John, 1:54–56.
56. For a valiant attempt to distinguish ἀληθινός from ἀληθής see Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, 1:11. See also the helpful remarks by Morris (The Gospel according to John, 84 n. 66).
57. Cf. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 160.
58. Wright, “Except through Me,” 60.
59. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 122.
60. This view takes ἐρχόμενον as a masculine accusative in agreement with ἄ́θρωπον. This interpretation is defended by Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 145.
61. For example Leviticus Rabbah 31.6, in The Midrash, trans. and ed. H. Freedman and M. Simon (London: Soncino, 1983), 4:401.
62. This view takes ἐρχόμενον as a neuter nominative in agreement with φῶς. The interpretation is defended by many commentators including Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:258–59; Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:12–13; Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, 1:10; Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 160–61; Carson, The Gospel according to John, 21; and Morris, The Gospel according to John, 83.
63. See Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:13.
64. James Montgomery Boice, The Gospel of John: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 1:65.
65. H. Sasse, “κόσμος,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3 (1965), 893.
66. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 123.
67. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 161; and Carson, The Gospel according to John, 124.
68. “Inner illumination is then not in view (whether of general revelation or of the special light that attends salvation)” (Carson, The Gospel according to John, 124).
69. Cf. M. Winter, “φωτίζω,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 449.
70. Calvin, The Gospel according to John, 1:15; and Morris, The Gospel according to John, 84.
71. Bruce, The Gospel of John, 36; and Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John, New Century Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 89.
72. John 1:9 is sometimes called “the Quaker text,” because the early Quakers, on the basis of the verse, believed that sufficient light was offered to every person (Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, 1:12).
73. For a similar illustration see Martin Luther, Sermons on the Gospel of John, Chapters 1–4, vol. 22 of Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia, 1957), 68–69. R. C. H. Lenski says the illustration originated with Augustine (The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961], 52–53).
74. C. H. Dodd argues that a threefold schema in verses 6–8 controls the subsequent sections of chapter 1 that deal with the Baptist: (1) John was not the light (vv. 19–27), (2) John came to bear witness to the light (vv. 29–34), and (3) through John’s agency all might become believers (vv. 35–37) (Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965], 248–49).
75. Boice, “Witnessing: The Progress of Revival,” 30–45.
76. Ibid., 35.
77. Ibid., 39-41.
78. Ibid., 43-44.