29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, "Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of whom I said, "After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me.' 31 I myself did not know him; but I came baptizing with water for this reason, that he might be revealed to Israel." 32 And John testified, "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, "He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' 34 And I myself have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God." 35 The next day John again was standing with two of his disciples, 36 and as he watched Jesus walk by, he exclaimed, "Look, here is the Lamb of God!" 37 The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. 38 When Jesus turned and saw them following, he said to them, "What are you looking for?" They said to him, "Rabbi" (which translated means Teacher), "where are you staying?" 39 He said to them, "Come and see." They came and saw where he was staying, and they remained with him that day. It was about four o'clock in the afternoon.
Let me note also that Sunday's text actually continues beyond verse 39, but for this blog up to 39 will do.
This blog can be counted among the things you probably would never hear in a sermon (at least not one of mine) beyond a side note. I would not give this kind of attention to such musings in the pulpit however. Thus cometh the blog (which my loyal readers might remember, such side note musings on texts was one of my original purposes for beginning a blog, my newer readers can find the comment in my first textual musing here). What I'd like to discuss is something usually left towards scholarship on the Gospel especially among those in "historical Jesus" studies. The issue is around Jesus and John the Baptist, particularly in John's Gospel.
To sum it up quickly, the question people wonder is why this gospel does not tell of the baptism of Jesus, and lays on heavily a sort of submissive role of John the Baptist? To be sure the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke for those unfamiliar with the term) also to some degree explain John as having a role for Jesus' own ministry, and they highlight Jesus over John and some indicate John himself expressed this. But they don't go to the extent that the fourth gospel does in expressing this. There are several keys here: for one, while other gospels seem to indicate the Baptizer is an Elijah figure (fulfilling the words of Malachi 4.5-6, the last words of the Christian Old Testament canon) John the Baptist denies even that title for himself in John 1.21. John's prologue makes clear John the Baptist came only to testify to the light (John 1.7-8). Later in the Gospel when disciples of John come and tell on Jesus the Baptizer responds by saying "He must increase, but I must decrease." (read the full story in John 3.22-36).
But perhaps where this is most noticeable in John's Gospel is the fact that it does not tell of the baptism of Jesus. This major event which jump starts Jesus ministry in the other three gospels does not appear. Instead we have only reference of the event by John the Baptist, we have his account of the event (although it should be noted that independent of the synoptics one would not be aware of the fact that John is recounting Jesus' baptism as the act of baptism itself is not mentioned, however the information provided does match the synoptics' account of events when Jesus came up out of the water of baptism). There are two typical claims I have heard here for this reason, one that typically accompanies a more narrative critical approach and one that accompanies a more historical critical approach. The narrative critical approach will note that this is consistent with a theme in the Gospel of John where Jesus is always in control. Even in his crucifixion he is not a passive figure but plays a very active role. Hence in John's Gospel there is no Simon of Cyrene carrying his cross for him. Jesus takes up his own cross. Likewise Pilot appears befuddled and confused as to how to handle Jesus, and it is Jesus who speaks a power for him to sentence him (John 19.11). Consistent with this, instead of seeing Jesus being baptized, in this Gospel we actually see him baptizing people (see again John 3.22-36).
The other comes from historical critical method, which attempts to ask what is behind leaving out the baptism, and in general this emphasis on John being lesser than Jesus. One common claim is that it is an act of overcompensation on the part of the Gospel writer. This method claims that Jesus was likely a disciple of John's who either took his place as a leader for many of his disciples after John was arrested or who became a dynamic leader from within and eventually led to a split. Proponents of this view point to several things in the gospels which they believe hint this: along with this constant abuse to John's character they contrast that with John's notoriety (especially from Josephus). The downplaying doesn't appear consistent with John's individual popularity apart from the story of Jesus. Additionally, they'll note that it would seem odd that if John meant to point to Jesus as plainly as he does in say our Gospel reading, that it seems odd he would still have disciples (both that he would permit it and that they would remain with him). They also look to how the gospels record tensions between Jesus' and John's disciples, comparisons between Jesus and John, and even rumors that Jesus was John the Baptist! Some may also note how in Matthew for example in the beginning of Jesus ministry his message seems to be based off of John's message (see Matthew 3.1-2, 4.17). All these indicate a relationship that would appear more equal than the gospels and John the Baptist in the gospels tell. Therefore the absence of the baptism was part of this attempt to show John was not equal and certainly never had a superior role to Jesus, as a baptism may indicate. Instead we get an introductory message from John prior to the baptism like in the other gospels including especially John's words of not being worthy to untie Jesus' sandals (1.26-27). But then when our reading transitions to Jesus' approach we have an accounting by John rather than the event itself (and as already noted, the account conveniently leaves out John baptizing Jesus). The assumption by such scholars is that in order for the Gospel to show Jesus as the clear superior (contrary to what they believe really happened), John the Baptist could not do anything to Jesus, but only talk about Jesus.
Now let me offer my response or thoughts on this. If we are dealing with overcompensation to make clear that John is the lesser, it would seem Matthew's account of the baptism would be sufficient for such a cause. Matthew explains the baptism of Jesus as for a purpose that must be fulfilled (thus not making Jesus subservient to John) and also indicates that John felt the reverse (Jesus baptizing him) would be more proper than John baptizing Jesus (see Matthew 3.14-15). The Gospel of John does not by omitting the baptism itself remove question of the relationship of Jesus to John, especially since John while baptizing tells the people that the "one" is among them currently (v.26-28). The Gospel then places Jesus among the crowd that is being baptized. Additionally, the content of John's message today to any familiar with the other gospels (which most scholars believe were already in circulation by this point) obviously is the baptism of Jesus, thus if the Evangelist was troubled by the other evangelists' telling of Jesus being baptized, to include details of the event in John's testimony in no way dispels the issue or adequately suggests Jesus was not baptized. The narrative critical note of the theme of Jesus in control in John is itself a much more plausible reason to omit the event than the historical claim that the author was trying to cover up or overcompensate against Jesus' relationship to John.
I don't say this to mean it is not at all plausible that Jesus may have been among John's disciples, the gospels themselves don't preclude Jesus from having spent time among John's disciples (Craig Keener notes that some suggest the language in verse 30 of "one who comes after me" could be taken as disciple language, indicating John is even suggesting it is from among his disciples, furthering the possibility at least from v.26-28 that John is referring to one among the disciples. Though it does not guarantee to mean this, it certainly shows that as a possible reading the Gospel does not preclude such). They do provide hints of a closeness between them, Luke even declaring them to be relatives (although that does not guarantee that they knew each other growing up). The only thing the gospels indicate is that Jesus is the greater of the two, and that John's purpose was ultimately to reveal Jesus and prepare the way for Jesus.
Returning to our reading, it is quite frankly not a good enough claim that this gospel does not include the baptism in order to cover up Jesus' subservience. After all, Christians after the resurrection did encounter disciples of John, some of whom converted. It seems that if the portrayal of John was disingenuous it would have been noticeable (see Acts 19.1-6, keeping in mind that tradition also places Ephesus as the location of John the Evangelist's ministry and where he was when he wrote the Gospel). While the omission may have the effect of emphasizing Jesus over John, or continuing themes of Jesus in control (although Matthew's accounting would just have easily maintained that theme) these seem to me to not be the main purpose for such an omission, precisely because it cannot solve that issue for disciples of John encountered, or those familiar with the wider gospel literature. Instead I think there are other reasons that tie as well to themes of the Gospel that would make the Evangelist emphasize John the Baptizer's account of the baptism (with no mention of the baptism) than tell the event itself.
- One proposed by Craig Keener is an anti-Judaic ritualism. That is, John's baptism, like baptisms and other washing rituals of the time among Jewish people reflected the Jewish purification laws. But John's Gospel comes to show Jesus as the purifier. The omission of the baptism but the inclusion of John's own words "I baptize with water" (v.26) undermine the importance of John's baptism. By the events being told in retrospect, the revelations about Jesus from the event are given independent of the event itself. This construction then is not interested in covering up that Jesus was baptized, but rather showing what mattered in Jesus' baptism according to the author. Thus the information about the baptism itself is left out. Additionally, John's own role as a baptizer is minimized. The Gospel only mentions in passing his baptizing (v.28), it is his testimony and his role as giving testimony (see v.7, 23, 33) that matters (see how v.33 in fact emphasizes his testimony as even his reason for baptizing). What all this does is show his baptism to be of little significance to the event of the baptism of Jesus itself. Keener suggests it undermines Jewish ritualistic washing for purification. Bo Giertz takes a similar approach at the wedding in Cana, seeing the turning of the purification bowls into wine jugs as a sign of a new purification needed, and the mark of the new messianic victory feast. This would speak to Jewish converts and especially those who may have been disciples of John. The Gospel after all does not dismiss baptism altogether but rather only lifts up the use of water that is found in Jesus and that is accompanied with the Spirit (see John 3.1-4.26, 7.37-39), which is even reflected in John's testimony in this reading (v.33). Another example of the Gospel replacing ritualistic cleansings with Jesus can be found by the man healing by the pool in John 5 (note it is important when reading it to notice verse 4, which is omitted from most Bibles and found only in the footnotes).
- This version emphasizes the role of testimony to seeing. The Gospel of John is the only Gospel that claims to be written by an eyewitness (John 21.24), and much like John the Baptist, what the author sees is shared that you may believe (John 20.30-31). And there is that odd message in John 21.24 "we know his testimony is true". This Gospel constantly turns what one sees and experiences into a testimony for others to see and experience. The same thing happens in John 4 with the Samaritan woman who meets Jesus at the well. The woman after meeting Jesus returns to her town to tell others. And it is said that others believed in Jesus because of her testimony (John 4.39). But this entire process begins with John. Thus the role John is assigned, is one sent to witness to the light (v.6-7). John was the first to see, believe, and testify. This is a major theme of Sunday's reading. Go back and notice how many times John either mentions what he saw or the text mentions he was looking at Jesus. John sees, and testifies. Which if you do read the rest of Sunday's Gospel (v.40-42) and then the next story (v.40-45) you will see the same pattern. Jesus is revealed to someone, and they go and testify about him to another. Thus the omission of the baptism is rather to frame John the Baptist's place in the start of Jesus' ministry according to testimony, which is significant in how the author tells us this is the same purpose of the Gospel itself (and such testimony is known to be true). Within the theme of testifying, Keener also notes how this form shows the testimony originating from God. He points out v.32-34 indicate that John only gave his testimony because in the act of the Spirit's descent the Spirit testified to him that Jesus is the one. This along with the prologue statement that John was sent from God and the Word's presence with God from the beginning all show that God is the one who reveals who Jesus is. It also sets up the themes in the Gospel that the Father (John 5.36-40) and the Spirit (John 14.26) testify about Jesus.
- Not an important theme, but a worthwhile note, is that some have contended that the synoptics indicate that the events of the baptism were seen only by Jesus (thus like a personal vision or spiritual ecstasy). They note details like heaven being opened "to him" and "he saw" the dove (Matthew 3.16, similarly Mark 1.10). Luke while not using quite exclusionary language recounts it after the baptism while Jesus was praying (3.21-22) making it also plausible to be read in a personal, private sense. Although such readings also ignore things like Matthew's account the voice declares "This is my Beloved Son" instead of Luke and Mark's "You are my Son, whom I love" thus indicating a wider audience with Jesus addressed in the third person rather than second. But nevertheless, the account being retold by the baptist in John would in fact say definitively that this was to be seen as more than a personal vision or message just for Jesus. It may have been that the author was aware of interpretations or questions from the synoptic accounts (he himself was at least very aware it would seem of the Gospel of Luke, as John and Luke share certain similarities and stories unique from the other gospels. It has long been my hope to one day do a significant study on those two gospel's. Of course it is possible that John preceded Luke or the author was one of Luke's sources - see Luke 1.1-3, but I generally agree with the tradition and scholarship that suggests John was the last of the four gospels to be composed), if the author of John had an awareness to such issues this would be one way to settle the dispute, to make it clear this was revealed at the least to John as well as Jesus. Also this makes it clear the message is not just for Jesus, as John's testimony emphasizes it rather for others. And while mentioned above this Gospel places the Spirit as the first to testify, the Gospel quickly takes the testimony of God and gives it to a man to share (again emphasizing for readers of the Gospel a divine revelation and testimony being shared by humans, including the author). Along with the absence of mentioning the baptism, in this Gospel then, the words declaring Jesus God's Son instead of booming from heaven are spoken by John himself in v.34. This whole interpretation again does not seek to hide or cover up the baptism but intentionally builds off of the tradition of the baptism. It places the revelations of the baptism as something seen and interprets even its meaning. The Spirit's descent becomes not an unexpected thing but just what John was told to expect. It confirms the heavenly voice, it confirms for John that this is God's Son which he then makes his own confession. Thus it makes the baptism experience of Jesus one to be shared for others.
- As a final note, let me suggest that this is because of the role of John the Baptist. While many scholars see it as a debasing, a form of minimizing John to where he doesn't even actually baptize Jesus, perhaps there is in fact a reverse here. This Gospel does agree with the other gospels on the role of John being in accordance with the words of the prophet Isaiah (40.3) of a herald preparing the way of the Lord. Rather than assuming that the absence of John baptizing Jesus is because the Author was afraid he would overshadow Jesus, perhaps the omission is for the opposite reason - that John pointing to Jesus by baptizing him (especially when he baptized many) simply was not adequate enough. In the synoptic accounts, it is the dove and the voice of heaven that really reveals Jesus. In John, it is the baptist who reveals Jesus. Notice how John still recalls the Spirit falling in the form of a dove (1.32), still declares Jesus to be God's Son (1.34) like the synoptic accounts, notice how John is referenced as one who prepares the way just as in the synoptics (1.23), and notice how other sayings of John that appear in the synoptics appear here as well, most notably that Jesus brings a different baptism than John (1.26, 1.33), that he is unworthy to untie his sandals (1.27). What is retained from the synoptic account is the testimony of John, and then this Gospel intensifies that testimony. It focuses on what is revealed in the baptism as it is recounted by John, it has him clarify his role (1.19-23), it has him say more about Jesus (1.29-30, 3.27-36). While many emphasize how self-debasing he appears here, few seem to emphasize that the baptist actually plays a larger role in pointing to Jesus in this Gospel than any other. As I have already shown there are places in the synoptics that certainly would allow John to baptize without being seen in any way as "greater" than Jesus, as I have shown testimony plays a major role in this Gospel as a whole, and as I've shown there may have been reason to think the other gospels were not clear in whether others besides Jesus witnessed the Father's voice and Spirit's descent in the baptismal account. I summarize these for a reason, if it is not necessarily debasement, perhaps it is not for a negative role but a positive one. For one it fuels a major theme of testimony, and I don't want us to forget that because John has a specific role tied within that. Also, because the baptism account in some gospels especially could be taken as private it adds to why the author would not see that as a satisfactory way to represent John's role in preparing the way for Jesus (especially when the author already has an emphasis on testimony). Thus the effort is to show John's testimony as his primary way of preparing the way for Jesus. Thus John speaks much of what he speaks in the synoptics, but then has more to say; more about who Jesus is and more in regards to the baptism of Jesus. Thus the Gospel of John creates a greater image of John the Baptist and his place in relation to the baptism of Jesus (since, as previously mentioned, anyone familiar with the baptism of Jesus account would know this Gospel is referring to it when John gives his testimony). To this we return to the prologue which declares John was sent by God to testify to the light. The prologue, especially in declaring this was a divine calling for John emphasizes his mission, and thus the first chapter will show John delivered on that calling.
The point of these wonderings is to stop assuming that John's Gospel is merely trying to cover up something about the relationship between John and Jesus (after all, there are more hints in this gospel suggesting Jesus spent time with the baptist than any of the synoptics). Perhaps instead we should wonder what it reveals about John.
Ultimately though, this is a gospel about Jesus. Whatever the reason the author left out the baptism account, what is clear is that John's role is to get you to behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World. And the Gospel will show you how he does it. One could even say to some extent, that the Gospel of John is about the Testimony of John the Baptist proving true. Jesus will pour out the Holy Spirit (20.22), show that while he came after John he was before him (8.58), die like a lamb for the sins of the world on the same day that passover lambs are slaughtered (19.31), he speaks of himself as the Son of God (10.36). The testimony of John, plays out throughout the Gospel and at the end you too are invited to believe it.
Debasing John? No. It's making John's ministry essential to the structure of the entire Gospel.
No comments:
Post a Comment