27. ᾿Απεκρίθη
Ἰωάννης καὶ εἶπεν, “Ob δύναται ἄνθρωπος λαμβάνειν οὐδὲν, ἐὰν
720 / 4 / md x 3 ”» βαπτίζει, καὶ πάντες ἔρχονται πρὸς αὐτόν. μὴ ή δεδοµένον αὐτῷ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. ο) 9 κ) > ει ‘ τυρεῖτε ὅτι εἶπον, Οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγὼ .. pee 3 / rii.9. Is. εἰμὶ έμπροσθεν ἐκείνου. liv. 5.
28. αὐτοὶ ὑμεῖς µοι µαρ- ὁ Χριστὸς, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἀπεσταλμένος
29. ὃ ἔχων τὴν νύμφην, "νυμφίος ἐστίν :
Eph.v.25.6 δὲ φίλος τοῦ νυµφίου, ὁ ἑστηκὼς καὶ ἀκούων αὐτοῦ, Χαρᾷ χαίρει
διὰ τὴν Φωνὴν τοῦ νυµφίου. 30. αὕτη οὖν ἡ xapa ἡ ἐμὴ πεπλήρωται.
led by his preaching to accept the Messiah he might well believe that he served Christ better thus than by follow- ing in His train.—Ver. 27. His answer sufficiently shows that it was not rivalry that prompted him to continue his bapusm.—od δύναται . . . οὐρανοῦ. The general sense is obvious (cf. Ps. Ixxv. 6, 7, cxxvii. I; Jas. i. 173; 1 Cor. iii. 7), but did John mean to apply the principle directly to himself or to Jesus ? Wetstein prefers the former: “‘non possum mihi Άττορατε et rapere, quae Deus non dedit”. So Calvin, Beza [* quid cona- mini meae conditioni aliquid adjicere ? ’’], Bengel [*‘ quomodo audeam ego, inquit, homines ad me _ adstringere?’’], and Liicke. But, as Weiss points out, it isa justification of Jesus which the question of the disciples demands, and this is given in John’s statement that His popularity is God’s gift. But John avails himself of the opportunity to explain the relation he himself holds to Jesus.—Ver. 28. αὐτοὶ ἡμεῖ ... ἐκείνον. John’s disciples should have been prepared for what they now see happening. He had emphatically declared that he was not the Christ, but only His forerunner (i. 10-27, 30).—Ver. 29. 6 ἔχων τὴν νύµφην ... The bride is the familiar O.T. figure expressive of the people in their close relation to God (Is. liv. 5, Hos. ii. 18, Ps. xlv.). This figure passes into N.T. Cf. Mt. xxii, 2, Eph. v. 32, Jas. iv. 4.—6 ἔχων, he that has and holds as a wife. Cf. Mk. vi. 18, Is. liv. 1. xii. 5.—vupdtos ἐστίν, it is the bride- groom, and no one else, who marries the bride and to whom she belongs. There is only one in whom the people of God can find their permanent joy and rest; one who is the perennial spring of their happiness and life—o δὲ φίλος τοῦ vupdiov, the friend, par excellence, the groomsman, παρανύμφιος, νυμφάγωγος, or in Hebrew Shoshben, who was em- ployed to ask the hand of the bride and to arrange the marriage. For the stand- ing and duties of the Shadchan and Shoshben see Abraham’s F¥ewish Life in
the Middle Ages, pp. 170, 180. The similar function of the Hindu go-between or ghatak is fully described in The City of Sunshine. The peculiar and intense gratification [χαρά yalpe, intensely rejoices, see especially Licke, who renders “durch und durch’’; Weizsacker, “freut sich hoch”; R.V., ‘rejoiceth greatly”) of this functionary was to see that his delicate task was crowned with success ; and of this he was assured when he stood and heard the bridegroom directly welcoming his bride [‘‘ voice of bridegroom ” as symbol of joy, Jer. vii. 34, xvi. ΟἸ.---αὕτη οὖν xapa ἡ ἐμὴ πεπλήρωται. This is the joy which John claims for himself, the joy of the bridegroom’s friend, who arranges the marriage, and this joy is attained in Christ’s welcoming to Himself the people whom John has prepared for Him and directed to Him. Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 2, where Paul uses similar language. It is not John’s regret that men are attracted to Jesus: rather it is the fulfilment of his work and hope. This was the God- appointed order.—Ver. 30. éketvow δεῖ αὐξάνειν, ἐμὲ δὲ ἐλαττοῦσθαι. Paley translates, ‘‘ it is for Him to go on grow- ing and for me to be ever getting less,” and adds, ‘‘the language seems to be solar”. In the Church Calendar, no doubt, John the Baptist’s day is Mid- summer Day, while our Lord’s “‘natalitia”’ is midwinter, but scarcely founded on solar considerations of the day’s increase after Christmas and decrease after 24th June. Rather John is the morning star ‘ fidelis Lucifer ’’ whose light is eclipsed in that of the rising sun (cf. Bernard’s ‘**Lucet ergo Johannes, tanto verius quanto minus appetit lucere,” and Euthymius, ἐλαττοῦσθαι ὡς Ἁἡλίου ἀνατείλαντος ἑωσφόρον). If the style of the following verses is any clue to their authorship we must ascribe them to the evangelist. Besides, some of the expressions are out of place in the Baptist’s lips: ¢.g., τὴν µαρτυρίαν αὐτοῦ οὐδεὶς λαμβάνει could scarcely have been said at the very time when crowds were