THE WITNESS OF GOD - JOHN THE BAPTIST
[p. 228] THE WITNESS OF GOD - JOHN THE BAPTIST
JT For the benefit of any who were not present this morning, it may be remarked that the subject before us is that of ‘Witness’, the witness that God has given to Himself. We dwelt on the creation this morning, and the prophets and the law, leading up to John the baptist. I think this gospel is the most fitting to consider in order to see John and the character of his testimony. We have the man himself here as actively engaged in testimony.
WB Is it not rather an abrupt way he is introduced here?
JT Well, each of the evangelists presents him as in keeping with the subject in hand. Matthew presents him as announcing the kingdom immediately. In Mark he is announced by the prophets. Luke presents him according to his own line, “understanding all things from the very first”, Luke 1:3 as he says. John presents him immediately as coming from God, “A man sent from God”.
WB He presents things from the source.
JT That is what I think you would expect from John.
AFM And John’s gospel seems to give the fullest account of John’s testimony.
JT Yes, I think that we have a sort of ideal in the Baptist from the evangelist’s point of view. The finish of John’s ministry is in the third chapter, and you can scarcely tell where he ends and the evangelist begins, so near did he come to the ministry of those who had the Holy Spirit or the beginning of our dispensation. He leaves off with witnessing to a heavenly [p. 229] Man and what is in heaven, so that you are quite impressed with the fact that he progressed in his ministry.
AFM While according to the other evangelists John baptises the Lord, he does not do so in this gospel, but he sees the Spirit coming down and he says, “I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God”. This is not in the other gospels.
JT God had indicated to him how he was to recognise Christ: “He that sent me to baptise with water, the same said unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptiseth with the Holy Ghost”. John himself came from God, and God directed him as to how he was to identify the Lord; you are impressed with the presence of God in this evangelist.
AL John seems to have got his instructions in the same place Moses did — I mean the wilderness. It doesn’t say where he met God, however.
AFM This thought of being sent from God, supposes that he was already with God, to be sent from Him?
JT Clearly. John had secret relations with God. He was filled with the Holy Spirit from the outset. You can understand what a boy he was, what a young man he was. The Lord was essentially holy; John was not, of course, but he was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb.
AL We get a wonderful description of him from his father, do we not?
JT The angel Gabriel Says to Zacharias, “Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elizabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John ... . He shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb”; Luke 1:15 and then Zacharias, after his tongue is loosed, Says, “And thou, child,
[p. 230] shalt be called the prophet of the Highest; for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways”; Luke 1:76 so that we are not left in the dark as to what his youth must have been as filled with the Holy Spirit from his infancy; he was great before the Lord.
AFM The last verse, would you mind reading it?
JT “And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his showing unto Israel”. Luke 1:80. That would confirm our brother’s remark as to his having to do with God in the wilderness.
AL Then there was the peculiarity of his food and his raiment Camel’s hair and locusts and wild honey. What is the significance of that?
JT The austerity of the Nazarite marked John, involving demand in his ministry. His clothing and food were different from what was current. The Lord said that John came “neither eating nor drinking”. Matthew 11:18, Luke 7:33. He was outside man’s world and enjoyment.
AFM Would it be that which was common to the wilderness?
JT As in the circumstances of the testimony, he took what was available. The Lord ate and drank; He was bringing God to men and so was amongst them. He “dwelt among us”. John 1:14. Christ was more truly a Nazarite than John, but not in a legal way. John was connected with the legal system, although in a sense greater than it by the Spirit.
GAT The apostle says we should not be like the Gentiles, so it is good to be marked out in this world as being different from the other people in it.
HG It is remarkable that so much is said about John, although his ministry was comparatively brief.
JT One might be a very short time in the witness box and furnish very conclusive evidence. John [p. 231] was divinely qualified to come very near to the Lord as a witness.
HG It is a question of telling what you are told to say — not a question of saying a great deal.
AN I suppose that John’s gospel is really the Genesis of the New Testament, and would not need much introduction in that way. I thought that “A man sent from God, whose name was John” would in a way answer to “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. Genesis 1:1. John’s ministry would bear upon the complete setting aside of the kind of man that had ruined the world.
HG He seems to be entirely independent of everything and everybody. Would not you say that the fact that they went out to him, “Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan” Matthew 3:5, would indicate the tremendous attractive power of the man? You would have thought that he would have gone to Jerusalem or somewhere to preach, but he was outside the whole system and yet they are compelled to come and hear, even Herod.
JT As filled with the Holy Spirit from his infancy, there must have been something very extraordinary about him. As filled with the Spirit, he would be kept in power superior to surrounding influence. He was superior to the claims of the flesh. He was, as you might say, taken charge of by the Spirit, so that he himself comes nearer to the Lord in his experience from his infancy than any other person. He was with God and so was sent from God. God would have had in view, I suppose, this kind of witness to Christ, and before His appearing He took care that he should be fully qualified. We can understand how he would be held even in his youth, when natural passions are strongest, by the Spirit; “he was in the deserts”, it says, “until the day of his showing to Israel”. Luke 1:[p. 232] 80.
AN He was really in accord with the ministry he was to render.
JT And when we come to the idea of a man sent from God, we are reminded that we are not now dealing with inanimate things. The creation, of course, came from God; it speaks, but not with intelligence. It is more its presence and its action, but when you come to a man sent from God you have an intelligent being. Now we are nearing revelation. A man come from God can convey something of what God is, not only in His goodness and power, but in His nature.
BTF Why does John say later, “I knew him not”?
JT I think he wished to emphasise that his acquaintance with Christ was wholly spiritual. He was a contemporary, about the same age (a little older), and there might have been a knowledge of Christ according to nature. One can understand how Elizabeth would have spoken to her son about Mary’s Son; they were indeed related according to the flesh. But John does not put things on that line. He did not know Him on that line; he knew Him, you might say, as Peter knew Him, by revelation — not in the same full sense as Peter knew the Lord, but he knew Him on that principle. “He that sent me to baptise with water, the same said unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptiseth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God”. He received his knowledge of Christ from God.
LS Divine sensibilities seem to have been there. Even previous to birth he greeted Mary’s salutation.
AN He might have known the Lord in a natural way, but the intelligence which he had was spiritual. I thought of that scripture in Corinthians, “henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more”, 2 Corinthians 5:16.
[p. 233] There might have been an intimacy on natural lines but he is speaking on spiritual lines here.
JT You feel how in keeping with John it is (I mean John the evangelist) that the knowledge of Christ is by divine instruction.
HG He does not receive his knowledge as the evangelist who lay in the Lord’s bosom — I refer to the first four verses. I wonder if they were written from a higher standpoint than that of John. I mean John the evangelist would speak of the Lord from his acquaintance with Him, as being near Him. He had ‘heard’, ‘seen’ and ‘handled’ the Lord.
JT The apostle is on a higher level, certainly, but emphasis is laid on the fact that the Baptist did not acquire his knowledge of Christ on the line of nature, though he had opportunity to do so. All this, I think, bears in our own time. It is imperative that we should have to do with God if we are to know the Lord Jesus.
You find this in a man like Nicodemus “we know that thou art a teacher come from God”. John 3:2 there is a recognition of the Source, and the effect of that on one’s soul is that I must understand what it is to have to do with God. John emphasises at the outset that that is how matters are. It is not by study, or reading or learning (of course these things have their importance), it is having to do with God.
Ques Is there a principle in learning in the wilderness? You referred to Moses, David and John the baptist.
JT I have no doubt. The wilderness furnishes nothing for the flesh, and John being there would show that he was out of the sphere where the flesh wields its power.
Rem In contrast, the Lord did not need to go into the wilderness.
JT [p. 234] He did not need to go there. He was driven there to meet the devil; Mark 1:12.
EGMcA According to John’s gospel, he comes from God with all the authority of which that speaks. He learned it in the wilderness, but when he speaks to the people it is as come from God — one whose authority cannot be gainsaid.
JT And his service is not presented as voluntary on the part of the Baptist. He is ‘sent’, showing that God is ordering all this so that there should be a competent witness to Christ, and the object is that “ye might believe”. God had men in view — “that all men through him might believe”. That shows the value of these witnesses. God graciously provided them for us so that we might believe.
AFM It says: “The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light”. The light is universal in character, is it not?
JT Yes. Then, “he was not that light”. The evangelist is careful to tell us this, but he came to bear witness to it, that all might believe. Then he goes on to tell us what the light was: “That was the true light, which lighteth every man”. God was graciously furnishing men convincing evidence, and so He brings forward this witness that He had carefully prepared. Now let us hear what he has to say. He is qualified; he has been sent. He is not one coming forward to volunteer evidence he has been sent. God knew what John knew. He knew what was there and puts him forward to bear witness.
GAT When the Lord speaks about him He says, “Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the baptist” Matthew 11:11, but when John speaks about himself he says, “I am not worthy”, John 1:27.
JT He says, I am not here to witness about myself. I am here to witness about Another.
John’s gospel speaks more about witness than any of the others.
GAT In what way do you think it would affect me if brethren commenced to think I was a great person like this?
JT John, I think, is brought forward here as a model. John the evangelist brings him forward by the Spirit as a model for all who would minister. No one had such an opportunity of becoming great in this world as John. Even the Pharisees sent from Jerusalem and inquired about him and his answer to them shows how we are to meet such a temptation. He was so filled with the Person to whom he was to witness that he considered himself nothing save a voice — “the voice of one crying in the wilderness”.
AL The result was, his disciples left him and went to that One of whom he witnessed.
JT That is why I thought we should see the whole picture. The result of a man’s ministry is the test. We need to know not only what he says, but what the result of his ministry is.
BTF We can understand the great delight that John the evangelist would have in bringing forward the witness of John the baptist.
AFM This attitude of John coming in, as you were saying, as it does here, should be invaluable for us at the present time, because there is a great tendency, not only outside, but inside (I mean, amongst us), to assume position. It is a question of being with God, and coming from God, and of being small enough to present the greatness of Christ.
JT Quite; coming from God involves power that cannot be gainsaid.
JB-t It is beautiful to see what is recorded of John the baptist here. His self-effacement is in accord with the message concerning the One to whom he bears witness.
JT “This is the witness of John, when the Jews sent from Jerusalem ... that they might ask him, Thou, who art thou? And he acknowledged and denied not, and acknowledged, I am not the Christ”.
[p. 236] That very fact shows how great a man he was morally, and Luke’s history greatly helps us to the understanding of this: how he was brought up and how he was filled by the Spirit and was great before God.
HG It was difficult for the Pharisees to understand this. The Pharisees were on the line of making everything of the flesh. John made nothing of it.
AN It is really his evidence that counts in that way. It is rather remarkable that it should be so all through the gospel, that if the disciples bear witness, and if the Spirit bears witness, it is the evidence that counts. The evidence was not clouded by the witnesses themselves. What is said should be clear and convincing.
JT One has often dwelt in the presence of this answer of John. What a witness it is! What a man he was, standing there bearing witness! God had sent him, and we are told at the very beginning that it was that all might believe, showing that God was thinking of men in preparing this witness and putting him forward, as we have said.
WB One is struck by the careful consideration of God, that we should have a special witness. He seems to take that into account, that we should have something to place our confidence in. The resurrection is the same, is it not?
JT “Whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead”, Acts 17:31.
HG While he bears witness to Christ, there is incidentally a terrible reminder of what man is — that such witness should be needed; the most brilliant light that ever shone was shining, and yet attention had to be called to it.
JT The Lord refers to that later. In chapter 5 He says: “I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved”. John 5:34. The whole point is that they might believe. As He advanced in His ministry, the light was shining in such brilliancy that there was no need of any other witness. John’s witness came in before He was really there ministering, preparatory to the shining of the light, to the end that men might believe.
AFM That is helpful. I have wondered about that verse sometimes. It does not refer to John’s early testimony.
JT The Lord recognises John’s testimony in chapter 5 — it was to the truth. John’s ministry preceded His. But when the Lord is in the full light of His own ministry there is no other witness needed (at least not man’s witness), but men were being prepared for the light by John, that all might believe. John bore witness to Christ, that He was the Son of God, but this was by divine direction — he saw the Holy Spirit come upon Him and remaining on Him. This witness was really the Father’s; which John reported.
JB-t God’s mercy would be behind the sending of John and his testimony.
JT I think that his separateness and unquestioned holiness, and his austere life, being so unique, afforded the Jews, at least, an immense advantage; and it was not lost on them, because they were moved by it. The Lord says, “What went ye out for to see?” I believe the whole nation of the Jews was stirred by this ministry; it was of God. It was a remarkable thing — God in mercy leading them up to the testimony of Christ, that they might believe. The coming of the Holy Spirit on Christ is recorded by the Baptist in this gospel, but in the other gospels it stands as a general testimony, added to which is the voice from heaven, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased”. Matthew 3:17. I think the Lord alludes to this in John 5:[p. 238] 32.
AN The apostle in Corinthians would answer to the same description as given to John — “not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God”, 2 Corinthians 4:2. That is, that there was no detraction from the truth in the medium through which it came.
JT You get in the ministry of John a fitting preparation for the introduction of Christ. It was, you might say, a miraculous preparation that an unborn child should be possessed of divine instincts. As our brother pointed out, the babe leaped at the voice of the Lord’s mother — “leaped with joy” Luke 1:44 — and then there was the promise that he should be filled with the Spirit from his mother’s womb, and that he should grow up before Jehovah and become great. But we can understand it when we see the great desire on the part of God that men should believe on Christ.
HG All classes were moved — the monarch Herod, the tax-gatherers, the soldiers, the people; they all hung upon his words, showing the power of the man.
JT Even although many of them were not regenerated at all, the fact that they were moved shows the power of the ministry, and what an advantage it was for them — that they might believe.
HG One feels the encouragement in seeking, according to one’s measure, to be on the lines John was on, on spiritual lines.
JT It has a voice for us all, especially for those who seek to serve. For example, there has to be this negation of the flesh. Living in the wilderness means that I avoid spheres of temptation. The flesh has not the same power when the temptation is not present.
AEH Is there anything suggestive in the fact that his clothes were camel’s hair? [p. 239] The camels have great endurance, and are suitable for travelling in the desert.
JT It is a creature that is much used in the wilderness for travel. Its needs are easily supplied. It was the creature upon which Rebekah travelled to Isaac.
GAT Would you say that if a young brother or sister purposed in their hearts to be here separate as John was, with the same desires in their hearts as he had, that the Lord would use them in a remarkable way?
JT The idea is — “A man sent from God”. After all, if you take up service, it is not a question of your ability alone, but are you sent from God? One may say, ‘I can preach’, but are you sent from God? That is what John would emphasise in his gospel.
AL “How shall they preach except they be sent?” Romans 10:15.
GAT How am I to find that out?
JT You will never be sent from God unless you know what it is to be with God, and that involves that one knows how to enter into his closet and shut the door, and pray to his Father which is in secret, and the Father which is in secret shall reward him openly; Matthew 6:6. The reward openly, in this respect, would be that God would send you to perform some service.
AL In connection with what his food is — locusts and wild honey. The Lord is spoken of in a somewhat similar manner. “Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good”, Isaiah 7:15. Discernment in the pathway that is pleasing to God is connected with food.
AN Do you not think that the Jordan being spoken of here is in accord with the passage of the river in Joshua, answering to Colossians 2, that is, that he had accepted it? There was another man in [p. 240] view, and he was prepared to accept the Jordan, the principle that he should go out of sight.
JT “These things took place in Bethany, across the Jordan, where John was baptising”. John 1:28. He had left behind, as you might say, the land of promise; it was forfeited.
AN It was not only the Jordan literally, but more what the Jordan represented spiritually.
AFM Those that went out to him would have to accept what his position stood for. They had to forfeit their assumed rights.
JT That was the meaning of his ministry, I think it is very beautiful to see how this evangelist introduces it, in presenting the incarnation. “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we have contemplated his glory)”; and then he says: “John ... has cried, saying, This was he of whom I said, he that comes after me is preferred before me, for he was before me” John 1:14,15; so that he had light as to the deity of Christ and is brought in as a witness to that.
AL It says He became flesh. It was His own action.
EGMcA John is thus the last witness before God becomes His own Witness.
AFM The reference to the “glory as of the only begotten of the Father”, John 1:14 would that be a further step as having become Man?
JT The evangelist says that. The apostles were His companions, but John the baptist is not presented as a companion of Christ. He is presented as a witness prepared before of God and while the evangelist is telling us what they contemplated, he brings in John the baptist’s witness parenthetically, saying “He has cried (past tense) ... He that comes after me is preferred before me”. John 1:15. That is John’s testimony and it is only brought in as a parenthesis to fit in there, where we are occupied with the incarnation of Christ, but in verse 19 the Holy Spirit says: “This is the witness of John”. John 1:19.
[p. 241] Now, it is not an item, but his whole witness is embraced in the following verses, and we do well to study them. “This is the witness of John”, John 1:19 as much as to say, This is the character of John’s ministry.
The Jews sent from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who art thou?” What is he going to say? Mark, it is the Jews sending from Jerusalem. They send from there priests and Levites; they are leading men. It was no ordinary circumstance. They sent their leading men to this man across the Jordan to ask him about himself. We are now to learn what John was morally. They ask him, “Who art thou?” He “acknowledged and denied not, and acknowledged, I am not the Christ”. John 1:20. You see, he acknowledged and denied not. It was a great temptation for him to say something that would lend to his own greatness.
AFM It was a tremendous appeal to the flesh in him, and I suppose if the question were raised with us as to who we are, we might be tempted to say something to our own advantage or aggrandisement.
JT A testimony against that is what there is in this for us. If we are to witness, this is the model for us. He “acknowledged and denied not, and acknowledged”. The way Scripture puts it is emphatic. The full truth is acknowledged.
AN It would be in accord with the action of the angel with John in Revelation. When he fell at his feet he said, “See thou do it not; I am thy fellow servant”. Revelation 22:9. A heavenly being would never think of displacing Christ.
GAT Do you think that was the object of the enemy in sending this message, to put John in the place of Christ?
JT Quite. Suppose the most renowned religious centre of the world were to send one of their most dignified men and he were to say, “We have heard of your preaching and your ministry, and it seems you are very successful; we wish you to accept a charge in our city”.
[p. 242] What a test that would be to any of us!
HG What would you say yourself, if you were asked?
JT I would certainly feel endangered. Even if the brethren in some of the leading centres recognise you, it is a great test.
GAT Have not some mighty men fallen under that same test?
AN An elder would not succumb to it. Every mark of distinction that he has earned he uses to honour Christ. The twenty-four elders take off their crowns and cast them before Him and say, “Thou art worthy”. Revelation 4:11.
GWH-n “We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake”, 2 Corinthians 4:5.
JT That is what John has in his mind in bringing John the baptist forward in this way. There is great need for service at the present time, for witness to Christ, but this is the principle of it. If we are sent from God, this marks us.
AFM What do you understand by a “voice”?
JT It is what John was here. We read of the voice of the prophets, etc. John was the voice of one crying in the wilderness. They questioned him: “Art thou Elias? ... Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us”. John 1:21,22. Notice the difference between where they come from and where John came from. They were sent, but from Jerusalem; he from God.
JB-t I suppose they were officially recognised as men of discernment priests and Levites.
JT Then they ask, “What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias”. John 1:23.
[p. 243] That was all. Thus he makes much of Christ and nothing of himself.
AL In Christianity is it not made prominent that the Lord Himself is the faithful and true Witness, so in the presentation of Christ you have the witness, rather than anything that we might have?
JT Quite. You are calling attention to Him, who is the faithful and true Witness. Here is one who is a voice, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness”. His crying had reference to Christ.
AN What is said of John in Isaiah 40 is interesting: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness”. Personally, he had been brought into accord with what was prophesied of him. Certain things might be said of us positionally, but whether we have been formed in accord with them is another matter.
AFM Would all the education through which John had been result in this, that he was a voice for the expression of the mind of God for the moment?
JT That is it; there was a voice of this kind. John was in circumstances suited to his testimony.
HG When a man is reduced to a voice there is not much of the man left.
JT The wilderness position here is remarkable. The power of his ministry had drawn people out there.
HG What is the meaning of the word ‘cry’?
JT I think it is to indicate feeling, how much he was impressed by what he had to say.
AFM Like in Isaiah 40:6: “The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass”. The feeling with which it was expressed would be in the cry. At the end of the tenth chapter it says that Jesus went back again beyond Jordan, and “many believed on him there”. John 10:42. Does that confirm the importance of John’s ministry?
JT That means that He went back to the beginning, “where John was baptising at the first”, showing that the Lord recognised this [p. 244] witness right through.
The Jews had definitely rejected Him then; John 10.
GAT I have just been thinking that if we are to be used to bring others out of what we call ‘system’, we must be out of it ourselves, not only positionally but morally. We must be in the good of the truth of separation in our souls, like John.
JT So that it says in Matthew’s gospel, before we have the introduction of the assembly, that the Lord left them and went away. He not only left them, He placed a distance between Himself and them. We are told here that they that were sent were of the Pharisees. Evidently, therefore, these messengers were qualified with all the dignity and authority of religion, and hence the great test for John, but he was equal to it.
AN Sometimes we lose the element of comfort spoken of in the prophecy of Isaiah 40:1, “Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God”. Then there is the voice of him that cries in the wilderness; it says, “What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field; the grass withereth, the flower fadeth”. Isaiah 40:6,7. It is very great comfort to know that what we have been brought into has not got an element of corruption or breakdown in it.
JT Nor does John make much on his mission here. He just says, “I baptise with water” as if he would minimise his ministry. He might have said much, but it is only “I baptise with water”. What a complete effacement of himself I He might righteously have spoken of the mission that he had received to baptise, but he says, “I baptise with water” — meaning the insignificance of it as compared with the ministry of Christ. He says of the Lord, “he it is who baptises with the Holy Spirit”. He stood there in their midst. He was witnessing to a Person, not who was coming merely, but One in their midst.
EGMcA Why did he wait until the next day [p. 245] for that testimony, that the Lord Jesus baptised by the Spirit? Here, he did not tell the priests and Levites that.
JT It was a question of what was in their midst. “The next day” — one of the thoughts in it is that he had time to think over all this. Night is always an opportunity to think over things. What are you going to do tomorrow if you have gained a victory today? It is the day after victory that tests you, so I think “the next day” brings out that John was equal to what he had said to these men from Jerusalem. He sees Jesus coming to him.
EGMcA He gives Him three titles in this next day. He sees Him as the Lamb of God, One who baptised with the Holy Spirit and the Son of God.
JT Now he sees Jesus coming to him. Hitherto he had been speaking, I apprehend, according to light that God had given him, but now he sees Jesus coming to him and he is moved. He is now speaking of One before his eyes.
AFM You think the first position was that He stood. He stood amongst them; that has to be noted. There is something in standing. Then in the next incident, as you remark, He moves toward John.
JT His standing amongst them was, I suppose, something like the Iamb four days in the house of the Israelite before it was slain (Exodus 12). He was there.
AFM He had to be appreciated — “Whom ye know not”.
HG Is not there an element of rebuke in that?
JT I am sure there is: “there standeth one among you, whom ye know not”.
HG Blessing for men is made to depend on their knowledge of and submission to Christ. Speaking of the Holy Spirit later, Scripture says, “Whom God hath given to them that obey him”. Acts 5:32.
JB-t It says “on the morrow”. Is not John introducing the present day, the day of the Spirit?
JT In verse 35 we have “Again on the morrow”. I think the first “morrow” brings in the death of Christ, His work; and then the next is His personal attractiveness, gathering; but the first morrow is the crucial morrow. John had gone over the night and on the morrow he is full of Christ. He sees Him coming to him, and this leads John to say, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world”. Observe, it is different from the next day, where he sees Him walking. Here He is coming to him.
GAT Coming to him — He would encourage His servant in having stood the test of the enemy before this. The Lord comes now to him to support him.
JT I think it would greatly support John to see that One coming to him. But for the moment John represented the judgment of God. He was administering baptism and the Lord was facing that in the full sense, so that John sees in that movement the work whereby the sin of the world should be removed.
AFM The designation was a new one, evidently given to John by the Spirit, “Behold the Lamb of God”. Lambs had been spoken of before through the sacrifices during the old covenant, but now a Man is designated as “the Lamb of God”, and then He is the Taker-away of the sin of the world. Is not there a double thought in that, as the Lamb of God, a sacrifice for sin, and then the work of the Lamb would be to remove sin from the universe?
JT I suppose His work on the cross, and that which is based on it in the future, are all embraced here. The intelligence with which John spoke of the work of Christ when he sees Jesus coming to him, and then his speaking of Him when he sees Him walking the next day, is very touching, proving too what John the baptist was, how intelligent he was as to Christ.
AL How do you apply that to us today? This must have a moral significance for us.
JT John’s position marked the judgment of God, I think. He was administering baptism and the Lord was facing that. The Lord was going into death. John read in that movement that He would take away the sin of the world. That was a great mark of his intelligence, which is surely a feature which should mark every minister, for without intelligence what can we do? Intelligence is not only that I know things, but that I can take them in when they come to me. I think this movement of the Lord toward John was light which John took in and spoke of — “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world”.
AL We could not take divine things in apart from divine formation.
AN Does the title “The Lamb of God” go beyond the sacrificial side?
JT I think it is also a diminutive thought, involving an object of affection. Nathan’s parable spoken to David helps as to what a lamb is. This is the “Lamb of God”, One that was delightful to God.
AN But “the throne of God and of the Lamb” Revelation 22:1,3 goes beyond what is sacrificial, does it not?
JT It does. I think the term ‘Lamb’ in Revelation is a suggestion of His sufferings; He is the suffering One.
AFM He speaks of Him as the “Lamb of God” in the second instance. Would you regard that as a term of affection?
JT I think it is a diminutive thought, as I said. In Revelation He is first introduced as “a Lamb ... slain”. Revelation 5:6. Then the reference to Him afterwards is to call attention to the fact that He suffered. But as the Sufferer He is all-powerful.
EGMcA Is there not in the Lamb the reserve that God has to remove all sin from the universe, as well as the diminutive [p. 248] thought?
JT No doubt the sacrificial thought is in it, as I said. I have no doubt the lamb taken from the flock in Egypt and held in the house four days alludes to the Lord standing in the midst of them, so that they might see Him, but they did not know Him. The intelligence of John is what is striking. As he sees Him moving to him, he can take in the thought and convey the mind of God: “Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world”.
Then the next day “John stood”. The Lord had been standing, but now He is moving. When the Lord begins to walk John stands. His ministry is finished. He stands, and when he sees Jesus walking he says, “Behold the Lamb of God”. He does not say anything of what He was going to do; it is a question of His intrinsic worth. The two disciples hear him speak and they follow Jesus. John’s ministry is finished, we may say.
EGMcA Can you help us a little on the title “Son of God”, as is seen in the day previous?
JT That was in keeping with the light that God had given him — “Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptiseth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God”. We have One here now who is no less than the Son of God. There again, I think, you have spiritual intelligence expressed in John. “The same is he which baptiseth with the Holy Ghost”. But John goes further than that and says: “And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God”.
HG Is that involved in the taking away of the sin of the world?
JT No doubt, but the relationship Son of God arose evidently in John’s mind as seeing the Spirit descending and abiding on Him. The witness that he bears is that He is the Son of God.
GAT [p. 249] In verse 29 we get relief; in verses 36, 37 we get attraction; and in verse 39 we are at home. All these results are, of course, based on the death of Christ.
JT What we should all learn here is the importance of spiritual intelligence in witnessing, that you are able to take account of what is presented to you. John is faithfully witnessing according to the light he had about Christ standing in their midst, and he has not as yet come in contact with Him; but the moment the Lord moves to him, he sees Him and he is able to express his estimate of Him. That is a great principle in becoming an effective witness.
AFM That is spiritual intelligence.
JT Yes. He is able to name things: “I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God”. This record or witness which John bears is in keeping with this gospel.
AFM It is in keeping with the gospel itself; as we find at the end where John the evangelist writes, “that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name”, John 20:31. There is a sort of climax there.
JT Quite. Later the Baptist speaks of the Lord as from heaven, but what we are speaking of is the burden of his testimony in this gospel. In chapter 3 he speaks of Christ as the Bridegroom, and that as standing and hearing Him he rejoiced in heart. This shows his personal, affection for the Lord and his interest and sympathy in what He was coming into. Then he says, “He must increase, but I must decrease”. He disappears joyfully in the light of a heavenly Christ, who as from above is above all. As already remarked, his words in this passage merge in with the words of the apostle John, entering into our own dispensation.
HG We could almost say, ‘The words of John are ended’.