The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 89

1. The fads. 'l'he synoptists and John agrne in admitting that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (comp. eh. vii. 4.2 with Luke ii. and Matt. ii.), though this is disputed. Still, it appears to us perfectly clear that the evangelist records the supposed objection to the 11on-Bctblchem origin of Jesus, which had been refuted by the widely circulated details of the birth. It is true that he does not reply to the insinuation that Jesus was born in Bethlehem -with the well-known historic fact, but he knows that his readers will h11ve the answer rea<ly to tum the taunt into a victorious proof of bis Messiahship (Dr. Salmon, 'Introduction to the New Testament,' has admirably nrgued this point).. 'l'hey ?:gree in asserting that his early home was Nazareth (eh. i. 46; cf. Matt. ii. 23; Luke 11. 51); that he left Nazareth, and treated Capernaum as his later re8idence and" city" ~comp. eh. ii. 12 and "!· 17, 24_ ~itb Matt. ix. 1; ~uke vii. 1; iv. 31; Mark ii. 1). The four Gospels agree m recogmzmg John the Baptist a.s the great precursor of the Christ. And the Fourth Gospel, as well a.s the first and second, refer to "the voice crying in the 'Wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord," as being fulfilled in the early ministry of the Baptist. The spccialty of the Fourth Gospel is that these words and this reference to Isaiah are therein attributed to the Baptist himself. The synoptists coin- cide in telling us that John introduced the Messiah to the people, a.nd refer to the cir- cumstances and accompaniments of bis baptism of Jesus, the opening of heaven, the voice from the excellent glory. The Fourth Gospel adds certain traits which had been omitted by the synoptists, such as the place of the first baptismal ministry of the fore- runner, viz. "Bethany beyond Jordan," and inserts the fact that the Holy Spirit not only descended but abode on the Lord (eh. i. 32). True, there is a. striking discrepancy. In the Fourth Gospel we find the Baptist making use of the remarkable words, "I knew him not, but be that sent me to baptize with water said, Upon whomsoever thou sha.lt see the Holy Spirit descend and rest, the same is be that ba.ptizeth with the Holy Spirit." Thus it would seem that John came to know the Lord by the marvels attending the baptism. Yet Matthew tells us that, when Jesus came to the baptism, John said," I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" This, it is alleged, a.mounts to an admission of knowledge, which the Fourth Gospel represents John as positively disclaiming until after the baptism. The word "knowledge" is a relative one. There ma.y have been quite know- iedge enough to induce John to shrink from baptizing one of such lofty character and known antecedents as those which prevailed in the family circles of Mary and Elisabeth; but John received such overwhelming conviction of the Divine commission a.nd sacred self-revelation of the Lord Jesus, that he could with all propriety have said, notwith- standing his hesitation at the baptism, "I knew him not" (see notes on eh. i. 33). The Fourth Gospel takes up the ministry of John just where the synoptists close their frag- mentary comment. It is not without special interest that in "the swanlike song" of the Baptist (eh. iii. 29), he uses a. metaphor derived from the entire conception of "tho Bridegroom n and the "friend of the Bridegroom," to which, a.s we see in the synoptists' a.ccount of our Lord's reply to the disciples of John on the subject of fasting, he reverted when defending bis own disciples from the charge of undue freedom and joyfulness (Mark iL 18-20 and parallels). This undesigned coincidence is singularly instructive. The brethren of Jesus, the mother, and Joseph as the father of Jesus, are all referred to by the fourth evangelist (see eh. ii. 1-12; vi. 42; vii. 3; xix. 25). If John had entirely ignored the existence of father, mother, and brethren, it would have been in harmony with the supposed docetic tendency of this Gospel ; but he, who desc1ibes the birth of Jesus as the coming into the world of the true Light, and of his being born of the Spirit, lays emphasis on the non-belief of the brothers (oh. vii. 5), and the mystery of Jesus being called the Son of Joseph (eh. i. 45 and vi. 42), for which he offers no explaua.tion. There is remarkable undesigned coincidence here with those references to Joseph in the synoptists, and to the plot which the Pharisees laid, with the assistance of the brothers, to take Jesus by force as one" beside himself" (Mark iii. 21; ai ..-a.p' ...:.,-aii are clearly identifiable with the "mother and brethren" of vers. 31-36). Few features of our Lord's ministry, in the synoptists, are more certain than the fact that Jesus chose twelve disciples to be" with him," a.nd to perpetuate his work. Now, John never describes the call of the twelve disciples, and, indeed, makes it clear that he was not always accompanied by the twelve; and yet, in eh. vi. 67, the 8wBE1C11 a.re specially mentio!l.ed, and they are hinted as twelve in ver. 13 (see also eh. xx. 24).  Tim GO8P~L AGCORDTNO TO ST. . JOHN. xci~