y render, testimony.

into Scripture, by adopting only-begotten God: a consequence which ought to have no weight whatever where authority is overpowering, but may fairly be weighed where this is not so. I therefore retain the commonly received reading, only-begotten Son. which is in the bosom]

The expression must not be understood as referring to the custom of reclining on the bosom, as in ch. xiii. 23: for by this explanation confusion is introduced into the imagery, and the real depth of the truth hidden. The expression signifies, as Chrysostom observes, Kindred and oneness of essence :-and is derived from the fond and intimate union of children and parents. The present, which is, as in ch. iii. 13, is used to signify essential truth, without any particular regard to time.

he]

In the original this pronoun is very marked: He, and none else: an emphatic exclusive expression. declared] Better than hath declared,' as A. V. On the sense, see Matt. xi. 27.

I. 19-II. 11.] INTRODUCTION OF CHRIST TO THE WORLD: BY THE WITNESS OF JOHN (vv. 19-40): BY HIMSELF (ver. 41-ii. 11).

19-28.] The first witness borne by John to Jesus: before the deputation from the Sanhedrim. 19. the Jews]

St. John alone of the Evangelists uses this expression ;-principally as designating the chiefs of the Jewish people, the members of the Sanhedrim. It is an interesting enquiry, what this usage denotes as to the author or date of our Gospel. Prof. Bleek has satisfactorily shewn that no inference can be deduced from it against the Jewish origin of the author, as some have endeavoured to do; but it is rather confirmatory of the belief that the Gospel was written after the Jews had ceased to be politically a nation,—and among Gentiles; -the author himself contemplating these last as his readers. priests and

Levites] This was a formal deputation ;priests and Levites, constituting the two classes of persons employed about the service of the temple (see Josh. iii. 3), are sent (Matt. xxi. 23) officially to enquire into the pretensions of the new Teacher

And he saith, I am

Z render, and he.

Luke ii. 15. Mal. iv. 5.

ch. iii. 28. Acts xiii. 25.

Matt. xvii. 10.

(ver. 25), who had collected about him such multitudes (Matt. iii. 5), and had awakened popular expectation that he was the Messiah (Luke iii. 15). Who art

thou?] The emphasis should be on the thou. The question is asked with reference to the popular doubts respecting him; in an unbelieving and inquisitorial spirit,compare Matt. iii. 7 ff., which had already taken place. Even among the learned, as well as among the people, there were considerable differences as to the prophecies respecting the Messiah: see ch. vii. 4052. 20.] He openly and formally confessed. This emphatic notice of his declaration seems to be introduced not with any view of removing too high an estimate of John's work and office, as sometimes supposed, but rather to shew the importance of his testimony, which was so publicly and officially delivered, that the Messiah was come (see ch. v. 33-35); and the way in which he depreciated himself in comparison with Him who came after him. 21.] Our earliest MS. (the Vatican) reads here, What then art thou?" equivalent to What sayest thou of thyself? ver. 22. Art thou Elias?] The whole appearance of John reminded them of Elias:-see Matt. iii. 4, and compare 2 Kings i. 8. Besides, his announcement that the Kingdom of God was at hand, naturally led them to the prophecy Mal. iv. 5. Lightfoot cites from the Rab.binical books testimonies, that the Jews expected a general purification or baptism before the coming of the Messiah (from Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 26, and Zech. xiii. 1), and that it would be administered by Elias.

"

And he saith, I am not] The right explanation of this answer seems to be the usual one, that the deputation asked the question in a mistaken and superstitious sense, meaning Elias bodily come down from heaven, who was expected to forerun and anoint the Messias. (Our Lord seems. to refer to the same extravagant notion in Matt. xi. 14, If ye will receive it, this is Elias, which shall come.) In this sense, John was not Elias; nor indeed in any other sense, was he Elias ;-but only (Luke i. 17) in the spirit and power of Elias.

28 These things were

vincing grounds. The truth seems to have been apprehended by Olshausen,-that the declaration of John that the Messiah was standing among them at that moment unknown to them, was an answer to their question demanding a legitimation of his prophetic claims;-a sign that he was sent from God:-see ch. ii. 18. Olshausen also suggests that this may clear up the saying of the Jews in ch. x. 41 (see note there). In repeating this saying at other times (see Matt. iii. 11 and parallel places), the Baptist plainly states of the Messiah, that he should baptize them with the Holy Ghost (and fire), as here in ver. 33. Here, in speaking to those learned in the offices of the Messiah, he leaves that to be supplied. whose shoe's latchet .] See note on Matt. iii. 11. The latchet is the thong of the shoe or sandal, with which it was bound to the foot. 28.] The common reading, Bethabara, is owing to a conjecture of Origen, the grounds of which he thus states:-"We are not ignorant, that in almost all our copies it is stated, 'these things were done in Bethany;' and this seems to have been so read even before our time: for I have read it so in Heracleon. But I am persuaded that we ought not to read Bethany, but Bethabara; for I have been on the spot, in my desire to track the footsteps of Jesus and of His Apostles and of the prophets. Bethany, as the Evangelist himself says, is only fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem, far away from the river Jordan, about 180 furlongs, roughly stated. Nor is there any place near the Jordan of the same name as Bethany: but they say that a place is shewn on the banks of the Jordan called Bethabara, where they relate that John baptized." He goes on to shew from the etymology of the names that it must have been Bethabara; an argument which modern criticism will not much esteem. It will be seen that his testimony is decisive for the universality and authority of the reading Bethany, while for the other he only produces a tradition, and that only at secondhand they say that such a place is shewn.' That no Bethany beyond Jordan was known in his time proves but little ;for 300 eventful years had changed the face of Palestine since these events, and the names and sites of many cbscure places may have been forgotten. I abstain from enumerating modern conjec

tures on the identity of the two, or the etymology of the names, as being indecisive and unprofitable. The objection of Paulus, that beyond Jordan the Sanhedrim had no authority, appears not to be founded in fact. The question whether this testimony of the Baptist is identical with that given by the other three Evangelists, especially by St. Luke (iii. 16), is, after all that has been said on it, not of great importance. The whole series of transactions here recorded, from ver. 15 onwards, certainly happened after the baptism of our Lord;-for before that event John did not know Him as He that was to come and "standeth among you," ver. 26, shews that he had so recognized Him (see below on "the next day"): whereas the testimony in Luke iii. 16 and parallel places, is as certainly given before the baptism. But since the great end of John's mission was to proclaim Him who was coming after him, it not only probable, but absolutely necessary to suppose, that he should have delivered this testimony often, and under varying circumstances: before the baptism, in the form given by St. Luke, "One mightier than I cometh," &c., and after it in this form, This is He of whom I said," &c. (ver. 15), where his former testimony is distinctly referred to. And among John's disciples and the multitudes who frequented his baptism, many reports of such his sayings would naturally be current. So that there is neither a real nor even an apparent contradiction between John and the other Evangelists. It is a far

more important question, in what part of this narration the forty days' Temptation is to be inserted. From ver. 19 to ch. ii. 1 there is an unbroken sequence of days distinctly marked. Since then ver. 19 must be understood as happening after the baptism, it must have happened after the Temptation also. And in this supposition there is not the slightest difficulty. But when we have made it, it still remains to say whether at that time our Lord had returned from the Temptation or not. The general opinion of Harmonists has been, that the approach of Jesus to John in ver. 29 was His return after the Temptation. But this I think questionable, on account of the "standeth among you," ver. 26; which I can only understand literally. I therefore believe

q Exod. xii. 3.

Isa. liii. 7.
ver. 36.

Acts viii. 32.

1 Pet. i. 19. Rev. v. 6, &c.

1 John ii. 2: iii. 5: iv. 10.

that the return from the Temptation to Bethany beyond Jordan had taken place before the deputation arrived.

29-34.] Second witness borne by John to Jesus: apparently before His disciples.

29.] The next day (the morrow). Those who wish to introduce the Temptation between vv. 28 and 29, interpret it, 'on some day after. Thus Euthym., "the next day; that is, the next after his return from the wilderness." But this sense, although certainly found in the Old Testament,-see Gen. xxx. 33 ("in time to come, "Heb. "to-morrow"),-is not according to the usage of St. John (see ch. vi. 22; xii. 12), and would be quite alien from the precision of this whole portion of the narrative, which, ver. 40, specifies even the hours of the day. I understand it therefore literally, both here and in vv. 35 and 44. coming unto him] It is not said whence, or why, or whether for the purpose of an interview, or not; the fact merely is related, for the sake of the testimony which follows. I mention this, because on these points difficulties have been raised. Behold the Lamb of God] This is one of the most important and difficult sayings in the New Testament. The question to be answered is, In calling Jesus by so definite a name as the Lamb of God, to what did John refer? And this question is intimately connected with that of the meaning of the following words, which taketh away the sin of the world. (a) The title must refer to some known and particular lamb, and cannot be a mere figure for a just and holy man, as some suppose. It is inconceivable, that the Lamb of God should, in a testimony so precise and formal as this of the Baptist, be nothing but an hyperbole, and that one wholly unprecedented, and to his hearers unintelligible. Had no doctrinal considerations been at stake, we may safely say that this interpretation would never have been proposed. In its bearing on the latter clause of the verse, it is equally untenable. These interpreters make which taketh away the sin of the world to mean, "who shall, though innocent, have, throughout his life, grievous experience of the wickedness of men, but shall, like a lamb, bear the evils inflicted upon him with a patient and gentle mind" (Gabler); or, "He shall remove the sins of men, i. e.

wickedness, out of the earth." The first of these meanings of the verb rendered "take away" is altogether without example. The second, though common enough in other connexions, is never found in connexion with "sin." The common-sense account of this part of the matter is :John wished to point out Jesus as the Messiah: he designates Him as the lamb of God; he therefore referred to some definite lamb,-revealed by God, sent by God, pleasing to God, or in some meaning especially, of God. Whence did this idea

come?

(b) Can John have referred to the paschal lamb? Further than the very use of the name brings in with it the general typical use of the animal, and thus this particular use may lie in the background, I think not, and for this reason;--The ruling idea in the paschal sacrifice has no connexion, in any sense of the words, with taking away sin. However, by the light now thrown back on it since the Spirit has opened the things of Christ, we discern this typical meaning in the sprinkling of the blood (see 1 Cor. v. 7),-in the Jewish mind, no mention being made of sin or the removing of sin in any connexion with the paschal lamb, the two could not be brought forward, in such an announcement as this, in close connexion with one another. (c) Can the reference be to the lamb of the daily morning and evening sacrifice? or to the sacrificial lamb generally? With the same reservation as above, I think not: for (1) this expression is too definite to have so general and miscellaneous a reference; (2) of many animals which were used for sacrifice, the lamb was only one, and that one not by any means so promi nent as to serve as a type for the whole: and (3) the lamb (with only two exceptions, Levit. iv. 32: Num. vi. 14, in both which cases it was to be a female, as if for express distinction from the ordinary use of the lamb) was never used for a sinoffering, properly so called and known. The question is not, whether Christ be not typified by all these offerings, which we now know to be the case (1 Pet. i. 19 al.), but whether the Baptist is likely to have referred to them in such words as these. (d) There remains but one reference, and that is, to the prophetic announcement in

Isa. liii. 7. The whole of that latter sec

tion of Isaiah, as before remarked on ver. 23, is Messianic, and was so understood by the Jews (see my Hulsean Lectures for 1841, pp. 62-66). We have there the servant of God (the Messiah) compared to a lamb brought to the slaughter (liii. 7), and it is said of Him (ib. ver. 4), "He hath borne our griefs (in the XX, "beareth our sins") and carried our sorrows"— ver. 5, He was wounded for our transgressions"-ver. 6, "The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (in the LXX, "delivered Him to our sins")-ver.8, "He was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people was He stricken "-ver. 12, "He bare the sins of many, and inade intercession for the transgressors" (in the LXX., "and was delivered because of their iniquities"). So that here, and here only, we have the connexion of which we are in search,between the lamb, and the bearing or taking away of sin,-expressly stated, so that it could be formally referred to in a testimony like the present. And I have therefore no doubt that this was the reference.

(e) We have now to enquire into the specific meaning of which taketh away the sin of the world (see above under [a]). The verb rendered taketh away answers to a Hebrew verb, which is used frequently in the O. T., in connexion with sin, in the sense of bearing its punishment :-see Levit. xxiv. 15: Num. v. 31; xiv. 34: Ezek. iv. 5; xxiii. 35 al. A form of this very Greek verb is used by the LXX in the sense of taking away sin and its guilt by expiation: see in our English Bible, Levit. x. 17. The word in our verse will bear either of these meanings, or both conjoined; for if the Lamb is to suffer the burden of the sins of the world, and to take away sin and its guilt by expiation, this result must be accomplished by the offering of Himself. But (f) it is objected, that this view of a suffering Messiah, and of expiation by the sufferings of one, was alien from the Jewish expectations; and that the Baptist (see Matt. xi. 2 ff. and note) cannot himself have had any such view. But the answer to this may be found in the fact that the view, though not generally prevalent among the Jews, was by no means unknown to many. The application by the early Jewish expositors of Isa. liii. to the

Messiah, could hardly have been made, without the idea of the suffering and death of their Messiah being presented to their minds. The same would be the case in the whole sacrificial economy: -the removal of guilt (which was universally ascribed to the Messiah) by suffering and death would be familiarized to their minds. Traces of this are found in their own writings. In 2 Macc. vii. 37, 38, the last of the seven brethren thus speaks before his martyrdom:-"But I, as my brethren, offer up my body and life for the laws of our fathers, beseeching God that He would speedily be merciful unto our nation; and that thou by torments and plagues mayest confess, that He alone is God: and that in me and my brethren the wrath of the Almighty, which is justly brought upon all our nation, may cease." And Josephus says of these same martyrs, that they were "as it were a ransom for the nation's sin and by means of the blood of those pious ones and the propitiation of their death, divine Providence saved afflicted Israel." The whole history of the sacrifices and devotions of the heathen world abounds with examples of the same idea variously brought forward; and to these the better-informed among the Jews could be no strangers. And as to the Baptist himself, we must not forget that the power of the Holy Spirit which enabled him to recognize by a special sign the Redeemer, also spoke in him, and therefore his words would not be the result of education merely, or his own reasoning, but of that kind of intuitive perception of divine truth, which those have had who have been for any special purpose the organs of the Holy Ghost. As regards Matt. xi. 3, the doubt on the mind of John there expressed does not appear to have touched at all on the matter now in question, but to have rather been a form of expressing his impatience at the slow and quiet progress of Him of whom he expected greater things and a more rapid public manifestation. 30.] See on ver. 15. 31.] On the apparent discrepancy between this statement, I knew him not, and St. Matthew's narrative, I have stated my view on Matt. iii. 14. Both accounts are entirely consistent with the supposition that John had been from youth upwards acquainted with our Lord, and