After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he abode with them and baptised.
After the night talk with Nicodemus, Jesus and His disciples leave Jerusalem for the countryside of Judea. Two questions sit in this short verse: what was this baptism, and why does only this Gospel record this period at all?
The verse opens a window on a period the other Gospel writers skip entirely. Their accounts start later, in Galilee.
We have here a view of what was going on before our Lord's public Galilean ministry recorded in the first three Gospels. They do not touch on any work of His before John's imprisonment, while the early chapters of this Gospel are devoted to it, after the revelation of His Person and His glory at the beginning.
His public preaching had not yet begun. What He did in Judea was quieter work.
Our Lord's public testimony, or preaching, began after John was put in prison, and it began from Galilee. But this passage shows that before then He was gathering disciples by private teaching, and His disciples were baptizing. His first actions and first showing of Himself, not His public ministry, were at Jerusalem... Then He went to the feast; then returned into the country of Judea and baptized, staying there.
Later this Gospel says that Jesus Himself did not baptize. His disciples did (John 4:2). Some have called that a contradiction. One writer answers by pointing to how the Gospels speak of Pilate.
John 3:22 — "He … baptized." Compare verse 26. The critic Schmiedel sets John 4:2 against this. But what about Pilate scourging Jesus, and his writing the inscription for the cross?
Another writer finds the reason in who He is.
The Lord Himself did not do the baptizing: this was left to His disciples. They could bury the dead, whereas He is the life-giver.
Nothing else in the Bible describes this baptizing. Its meaning comes clear only when set beside John's.
We have no account anywhere else of such baptizing, which we naturally take to have been similar in character to John's... In the New Testament, baptism is always to death; Christian baptism is to Christ's death (Romans 6:3). To take one's place in death is a profession of repentance. Death is the sentence from God under which man has come through sin, and so those baptized by John confessed in it the sins which had brought them there... Now He had come, and His own proper ministry began, clearly going beyond John's baptism. Yet through His disciples He could confirm the truth of it, while taking care to keep His own place apart.
John was still baptizing, in a place of his own. What did that mean for him now that Jesus had come?
The gathering to Him, which had begun east of the Jordan, was now going on to the west. The Lord had left Jerusalem and was in the land of Judea. His disciples, as 4:2 tells us, were baptizing, apparently copying John's practice. The common report got about that the Lord Himself baptized. Two parties were then at work: John on one side, and the disciples of Christ on the other. They were in places far apart, and clearly not acting together. So a question might easily arise: which should people follow? Had the Baptist's star begun to set?
Why keep a record of two baptisms going on at once? It leads to the last word John the Baptist speaks about Jesus — and he speaks it when a man is least likely to be generous.
Some might think that the Lord was only using His predecessor to continue the work and outdo it. So it was fitting that John the Baptist should give a final testimony to Him, just where human nature tends to be most grudging.
- Place — He leaves Jerusalem for the countryside of Judea. All of it happens before John goes to prison, which is where the other three Gospels begin.
- Company — He stays with His disciples. He teaches them in private, before any public preaching begins.
- Hands — The verse says He baptized, but His disciples did the work. Commentators differ on the reason. One points to the way Scripture also speaks of Pilate; another to His place as the life-giver.
- Meaning — This baptism was like John's — a confession of repentance. Christian baptism is to Christ's death. Here He confirmed John's message and kept His own place apart.
- Handover — Two baptisms at once raised the question: whom should people follow? That question drew out John the Baptist's last testimony to Christ.
And John also was baptising in Aenon, near Salim, because there was a great deal of water there; and they came to [him] and were baptised
John 3:23 looks like a quiet piece of reporting: Jesus and His disciples were in Judea, and crowds were still coming to John at Aenon. These details tell us when this happened, what John's baptism meant, and how a servant behaves near the end of his work.
The verse gives one reason John worked there: plenty of water. One writer traces the name back to its root, and to a site that fits:
The site of Aenon has been disputed. It seems to be named from springs found there, since the Greek word is simply a translation of the Aramaic word meaning springs. No location will suit unless it has plenty of water. Now there is a spot in the Jordan valley, seven and a half miles south of Scythopolis, or Beisan. It has "a remarkable group of seven springs, all lying within a quarter of a mile, which answers well to the description of much water."
Both place names carry meaning. One writer reads them alongside John's work:
John also continued baptizing, keeping his place as forerunner. He was now in Aenon, "abounding in springs," near to Salim, or Shalem, "peace." The names are as significant here as everywhere else in the word of God.
For a short window, John's work and the work of Jesus' disciples ran side by side. The next verse dates it: all this happened before John's arrest. That matters when you read the four Gospels together:
Verses 22-24 make it quite clear that all this happened before John was put in prison. That is the point where the Lord's public ministry starts according to Matthew 4:12; Mark 1:14; Luke 3:20. For a short time both the Lord — through His disciples (see John 4:2) — and John were baptizing.
The other three Gospels skip this stretch. One writer sums up what the fourth Gospel adds:
We have here a view of what was going on before the public Galilean ministry of our Lord that the first three Gospels present. They do not touch on any work of His before John's imprisonment. The early chapters of the fourth Gospel focus on it instead, after the revelation of His Person and glories at the beginning.
The people wading into that water were owning their true condition. They took their place with a group marked off from the rest of the nation:
John's baptism was a baptism of repentance to prepare people for the coming Lord. So it was a purification — a "baptism of repentance" — and it marked out and separated a remnant from the mass of the people to escape the coming judgment... The crowds came to his baptism, confessing their sins. He baptized them in the Jordan, the river of death. In this they owned that everything was over with them as far as natural claim went, and that only divine mercy in a Saviour could meet their need. So they are baptized for — or better, towards — forgiveness of sins. They wait for it in hope, though they have not yet received it.
The baptizing done by Jesus' disciples at the same time carried the same meaning:
This baptism must have been the same in character as John's, that is, "to repentance." It could not be our present Christian baptism, which is to Christ's death (Rom. 6:3)... At this time John was still baptizing, though his ministry was short-lived before his imprisonment.
People were still coming to Aenon, but the movement was shifting. One writer notes the awkward situation this created:
Two parties were then acting — John on one side, and the disciples of Christ on the other. But they were in different places far apart, and clearly not working together. So a question might easily arise: which should people follow? Had the Baptist's star begun to set?... He clearly did not view his mission as finished, for people still flocked to his baptism. Yet many more went after the Lord.
John kept baptizing anyway. The shape of his whole ministry explains why:
God designed John's ministry to be unfinished. John kept turning attention away from himself to the only One who could do what mankind deeply needed. John was simply a witness to Him, and his lowly steadfastness in maintaining this is a healthy example for us.
- Springs — Aenon means springs. The verse names the plentiful water as the reason John worked there, and a site of seven springs in the Jordan valley fits.
- Station — John kept baptizing and held his place as forerunner. He worked near Salim, a name that means peace.
- Sequence — John was not yet in prison. That dates the whole scene before the Galilean ministry the other three Gospels open with.
- Significance — His baptism was one of repentance. It marked out a remnant who owned their place in death and waited in hope for forgiveness. It was not the Christian baptism to Christ's death.
- Steadfastness — Crowds were starting to shift to Christ, yet John kept working. God meant his ministry to stay unfinished, pointing away from himself.
for John was not yet cast into prison.
The narrator breaks off mid-scene to tell us something the story has not yet reached — that John was still a free man. It is a small aside with large effects. It anchors the chapter in time. It also explains why these early events appear nowhere in Matthew, Mark, or Luke.
The remark works like a date stamp on everything before it.
Verses 22-24 make it quite clear that the events above took place before John was put in prison. That is the point where the Lord's public ministry starts in Matthew 4:12; Mark 1:14; Luke 3:20. For a short time both John and the Lord were baptizing — the Lord through His disciples (see John 4:2).
The fixed timing also settles a question about the temple. Did the Lord drive out the traders once, or twice?
There were clearly two cleansings of the temple: the one in John 2 was before the Lord entered on His public ministry, for John had not yet been put in prison. (John 3:24. Compare Mark 1:14-15.) The second was when He went up the last time to Jerusalem to be crucified, and had ridden into Jerusalem as Messiah.
Two baptisms were running side by side. John was still free, so he kept working — and the place names in the account carry meaning.
John also went on baptizing, keeping his place as forerunner. He was now in Aenon, which means "abounding in springs," near to Salim, or Shalem, which means "peace." These names matter here, as all names do in the word of God.
That raises a question. Which baptism were the disciples of Jesus giving at this stage?
This baptism must have been of the same character as John's, that is, "for repentance." It could not be our present Christian baptism, which is into Christ's death (Romans 6:3). This is the only record of the disciples baptizing before Pentecost, though John 4:1 says they baptized more people than John did. At this time John was still baptizing, though his ministry was short before his imprisonment.
The words carry a warning inside them. John is free now, but not for long. In the very next paragraph he hears that the crowds are leaving him for Jesus. His answer shows a side of him easy to overlook.
We have here a view of the lovely character of John the Baptist. We are so used to thinking of him as the stern preacher against sin that we may forget how completely he set himself aside when comparing himself with Christ. His disciples may have been jealous for their master's honour without knowing it. But with John there is nothing but joy as he hears how men are flocking to Christ. "He must increase, but I must decrease" is the motto of his life.
The prison that this verse points forward to became the hardest test of John's life. Commentators note that he faltered there. They treat his struggle with sympathy, not blame.
We fully recognise the momentary failure of John the Baptist. We clearly see the points where his faith proved defective. But let us remember the pressure of his circumstances. And let us remember how hard, in practice, the lesson was that he had to learn inside his prison walls. It is very hard for a workman to find himself laid aside. Indeed, there are few things more difficult for an active mind than to learn that we can be done without. We are so ready to think the work cannot go on without us. And yet the Lord can soon teach us our mistake. Paul's imprisonment advanced the cause of Christ. Jailing one great preacher brought out a crowd of lesser ones. We all have to learn this healthy lesson: God can do without us, and the work can go on without us. Remembering that gives the heart great rest.
- Dated. The note that John was still free dates these chapters. They come before the point where Matthew, Mark, and Luke start the Lord's public work.
- Distinguished. The same timing separates the temple cleansing of John 2 from the one in the final week. Two events, not one story told twice.
- Doubled. For a short time two baptisms ran at once. John kept his post at Aenon, and the Lord's disciples baptized too.
- Decreasing. John met the news that crowds were leaving him with joy, not jealousy. His motto: Christ must increase, and he must decrease.
- Discharged. The "not yet" points to the prison ahead. There John had to learn the lesson every servant meets: the work goes on without us. The Lord can soon teach us that.
There was therefore a reasoning of the disciples of John with a Jew about purification.
John's followers are baptizing in one place, and Jesus' disciples in another. A dispute over purification breaks out, and the text never says how it ended — or where real purification is found.
The dispute did not come out of nowhere.
The gathering to Him, which had begun east of the Jordan, was now going on to the west. The Lord had left Jerusalem and was in the land of Judea. His disciples, as 4:2 tells us, were baptizing, apparently copying John's practice. The common report spread that the Lord Himself baptized. Two parties were then at work: John on one side, and the disciples of Christ on the other. They were in different places far apart, and clearly not in step with each other. A question might easily arise: Which should people follow? Had the Baptist's star begun to set?
The word points to Israel's system of ritual washing.
During the Lord Jesus' ministry on earth, the question of the day was about purification. It was raised between the disciples of John and a Jew. The Jews wanted their ceremonial purification, so that they could treat someone of another nation as "common or unclean." … John's ministry struck straight at ceremonial purification. Though John was born into the family of Aaron, he found his place of ministry not in the temple but in the wilderness. He "came in the way of righteousness." Being descended from Abraham, or keeping rules, did not meet what his ministry demanded. Repentance was an inward moral purification. It stood far above the Jewish ceremonial order. Yet it still stood far below the new order of purification that John's ministry only introduced.
Notice what the passage does not do. It never rules on the dispute. The subject changes to Jesus. (Manuscripts differ here: some read "a Jew," as the ESV does, and others "the Jews.")
It is interesting that nobody directly answers the question about purifying raised in verse 25 between John's disciples and the Jews. No doubt the Jews linked baptism with purifying, for baptism does imply cleansing. But this outward cleansing is only a symbol of the deeper, spiritual cleansing that people need. There is no doubt that John knew this. But they do not raise it with him directly. Instead they tell him that the Lord Jesus had been baptizing, and that many were coming to Him. No doubt John's answer does take care of the purifying question too. It points to the One who alone could bring real, living purification to people's souls.
So where is purification really found? One writer points to the cross.
Yet only baptism to Christ — that is, to His death — answered the question of purity and the need of it. … "After making purification for sins [that is, in His atoning death on the cross], He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Heb. 1). We see now where purification is found. The believer who enters into the meaning and value of that death before God can accept the exhortation, "So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus." Here, and here alone, this question about purification is fully answered.
The argument itself left John's disciples unshaken. What unsettled them was the crowd moving elsewhere.
A Jew's reasoning did not ruffle them. In their souls they could not help feeling how much higher John's call and his baptism stood — a baptism to repentance in the faith of the coming Messiah. But the nearness of Jesus disturbed them. So did His power to draw people, veiled as that power then might be.
The report they carried to John looks like loyalty, and reads like bait.
We are not told how it was settled. But it gave the others an occasion to come to John and say, "He who was with you across the Jordan … is baptizing, and all are going to Him." Their aim was clearly to stir up a spirit of jealousy in him. They told him, in effect, that the tide of his popularity was running toward his Master, and that people were deserting him.
John does not argue the case. He answers with a principle that dissolves it.
What strikes me is John's way of settling all questions, right or wrong. He finds a perfect solution for all of them in the presence of his Lord. "John answered: A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven." … What a perfect cure for strife, envy, jealousy and rivalry! … Not one atom of good on earth except what comes from heaven. Not an atom of good in man except what comes from God. Why then should anyone boast, or be jealous, or envious?
- Occasion. Two groups were baptizing at once, and the crowds had to choose. That is fertile ground for a dispute about washing.
- Subject. "Purifying" meant Israel's ceremonial washing. John's call to repentance had already cut across that system.
- Silence. The argument is never settled on its own terms. The text moves straight past it to Christ.
- Answer. Real purification is not in water but in His death, entered by faith.
- Test. The question exposed hearts. John's disciples felt eclipsed. John traced every gift to heaven and refused to compete.
And they came to John and said to him, Rabbi, he who was with thee beyond the Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, he baptises, and all come to him.
Word reaches John that the crowds are now going to Jesus instead. The way his visitors report that news tells us as much about them as it does about Jesus.
The report grows out of an argument in the previous verse about ceremonial washing. Watch what happens to that first question.
It is interesting that no one directly answers the question raised in verse 25 between John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. No doubt the Jews connected baptism with purifying, for baptism does imply cleansing. But this outward cleansing is only a symbol. It points to the need for a deeper, spiritual cleansing. There is no doubt that John knew this. But instead of speaking to him directly about this, they inform him that the Lord Jesus had been baptizing, with many coming to Him. No doubt John's answer does take care of the purifying question too, for it points to the One who alone could truly accomplish purification for people's souls.
They greet John with a title of respect — one that belonged to Jesus as well.
A title of respect among the Jews, meaning 'master, teacher'... It was applied to the Lord, though often translated 'master'... According to the Jews the levels of honour rose from Rab to Rabbi, and from there to Rabban or Rabboni.
Their headline — that Jesus was baptizing — was not exact. The Gospel corrects it later. What matters more is where John looked for his answer.
Now this was a mistake, for "Jesus Himself did not baptize, but only His disciples." But this is not the point here. What strikes me is John's way of settling all questions, right or wrong. He finds a perfect solution for all in the presence of his Lord.
An argument with a Jewish opponent had not shaken these men. Something else did. Commentators differ on who brought the news. Some say John's own disciples. Others say Jews who saw a chance to stir him up.
A Jew's reasoning did not ruffle them. Their souls could not help feeling the moral superiority of John's call and his baptism of repentance, in the faith of the coming Messiah. But the nearness of Jesus disconcerted them, and so did the fact of His attractive power, veiled as it then may have been. Their appeal to their master took the form of zeal for one who had been quick to acknowledge the dignity of Jesus when He came to John for baptism.
Notice how they describe Jesus: not by who He is, but by His link to John — the one who was with you, the one you testified about. That turns the true order of value upside down.
They make John the important man, and Christ the secondary person. "See," they say to John, "how He treats you." John reminds his disciples of his own testimony about Christ.
The sting is in the last phrase: all are going to Him.
Their object was clearly to stir up a spirit of jealousy in him. They told him, in effect, that the tide of his popularity was running toward his Master, and that he himself was being deserted.
That instinct has an older source, and it is aimed here at the two people it could least fit.
Here they try to set up that horrid, awful spirit of rivalry between the forerunner and the Master, and the devil is the prime mover in it.
John had already called himself only a voice. Now the news put that claim to the test.
Here was something designed to test the heart of the Baptist. Could he bear to lose all his disciples? Was he prepared for desertion? Was he really up to the height of his own words? Was he merely a voice, a nothing and a nobody? These were fair questions, for we all know it is one thing to talk humbly and another thing to be humble.
- Occasion — A dispute about ceremonial washing turns into a report about Jesus baptizing. John's reply points to the One who can truly cleanse.
- Distortion — The messengers define Christ by His link to John. That makes John the important man and Christ the secondary one.
- Bait — "All are going to Him" aims to stir jealousy. It tells John the crowd has drained away to his Master.
- Test — John had said he was nothing but a voice; losing his followers now measures whether he meant it.
- Answer — John settles every question, right or wrong, in the presence of his Lord.
John answered and said, A man can receive nothing unless it be given him out of heaven.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
Ye yourselves bear me witness that I said, I am not the Christ, but, that I am sent before him.
John's own followers came to him upset: crowds that once came to the Jordan were now going to Jesus (v. 26). His reply points back to what he had said all along. He never claimed the Christ's place.
What his disciples felt as loss, John treats as the very thing he had announced from the start.
What he was not, and what he was, he here restates. He was the messenger before the face of the Christ, His forerunner... A subordinate place, therefore, was his. His star had begun to fade. Yet he was not jealous... How fitting it was that the Baptist should speak like this, and to his own disciples! Party feeling was crushed at once; rising jealousy was nipped in the bud.
John's answer puts God and himself each in the right place. That is why he can watch his own work shrink without a struggle.
It was lowly, yet wise as well. As truth always does, it put both God and ourselves in the right place. So we come to recognise His sovereign disposal of all things. Each of us grows content with his own lot. And, we may add, we do the duty that flows from it with quiet firmness. For there is no greater error than the thought that our own will is really strong. Even if it were so, obedience is stronger still... If he was eclipsed as the morning star is by the dawn, it was to fulfil his mission, not to fail in it. He, the servant and forerunner, had never claimed to be the Master, as they could all confirm, if they would.
John does not produce fresh proof. He calls on the memory of the men standing in front of him — they had heard him say it. A witness who envied the One he pointed to would contradict his own message.
God had sent John for a purpose. All he needed to do was fulfil that purpose. He was not to envy another man because of that man's work, since God had plainly given it. This was especially true of Him who is the eternal Son of God. Had not John told them plainly that he himself was not the Christ, but was sent before Him? Is he to be envious of the One to whom he bears witness, whose glory is so great?
"I am not the Christ" would be an empty thing to say if nobody had thought otherwise. The disclaimer measures how high people's estimate of John had climbed.
The Jews send priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask who he is. John replies, "I am not the Christ." He is not "that prophet" either — the prophet promised in Deuteronomy 18:15-18. Such was his worth in the eyes of men that he had to announce that he is not the most noted person in Israel. Except Christ, there was never in this world a greater than he.
The second half of the verse is John's whole job description.
The coming of the Messiah was of deep importance, and enormous issues hung on it. So God in His great mercy appointed a forerunner to prepare the way for people to receive Him. This gracious arrangement left those who refused Him with no excuse at all... His whole business therefore was to prepare men for the Christ. It is true that he himself attracted much attention. The whole country was talking about him. But with every enquirer he sought to turn attention away from himself and fix it on his more glorious Master and Lord. "I am not the Christ." "Behold the Lamb of God" (John 1:20, 29). This is, after all, the proper function of every true servant of God in every age.
Others were trying to turn John and Jesus into rival causes.
The Jews raised questions between themselves and John's followers. They tried to make John and Christ the leaders of opposing factions and parties. That gave John an occasion to show where his heart was, and how entirely Christ had settled all questions for him. Notice how he hides himself behind the Christ of God, and how he makes little of himself in order to make much of Jesus.
- Received — each person's lot is God's own arrangement, so John is content with his.
- Recalled — John answers jealousy by quoting himself. His own disciples had heard him say he was not the Christ.
- Renounced — men rated John so highly that he had to say plainly, "I am not the Christ."
- Sent — his one task was to go ahead and prepare people for Christ. He turned every enquirer away from himself.
- Hidden — with the crowds moving on, he hides behind Christ, making little of himself to make much of Jesus.
He that has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices in heart because of the voice of the bridegroom this my joy then is fulfilled.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
He must increase, but I must decrease.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
He who comes from above is above all. He who has his origin in the earth is of the earth, and speaks [as] of the earth. He who comes out of heaven is above all,
John the Baptist's disciples had come to him worried: crowds were draining away to Jesus. He did not defend his own standing. He pointed instead to where each of them came from. Origin, he says, settles everything.
John had just said that the One coming after him must grow greater while he grows smaller. He said it with joy, because he knew where Jesus came from.
Like the sun, Christ was to rise to His zenith with increasing glory; so, like the moon, John was to fade out and disappear. He knew it and rejoiced, for at that moment Christ was everything in his thoughts. He knew Him as One coming from heaven and not of earth at all. Being such, He spoke in a way impossible to all others.
Notice whose lips these words come from. The Lord could have defended His own place. Instead the man losing ground makes the claim.
It was fitting that John the Baptist's own lips should declare the unquestionable supremacy of the Lord Jesus. He said it in front of his own disciples, who were jealous for their leader's honour. The Lord may vindicate John, but John asserts the glory of Jesus.
"Above all" is not a ranking at the top of a list. It removes Jesus from the list altogether.
The glory of the Person of Christ shines with rich brilliance here. It is not only that He stands nearer to His people than John did. It is not only that He increases while the greatest man born of women decreases. He is superior to all comparison. "He who comes from above is above all." Neither Adam nor Abraham, Enoch nor Elijah, could take such ground. They, like John, did not come from above, nor could any one of them be said to be above all. Nor could our blessed Lord Himself be so described, as born of Mary and heir of David, had He not been God — the great theme of this Gospel.
The verse says the earth-born man speaks as one of the earth. Jesus was a real man on this earth. Yet His Person lifted His humanity, not the reverse.
Jesus lost none of His own supreme dignity when, in divine love, He chose to become man. Like all other men, John could claim no other origin naturally than the earth. Jesus alone is out of heaven. His Person has such power that He raises humanity up into union with His divine nature. Humanity does not drag Him down into its degradation by sin, as some have wrongly imagined.
The contrast is not moral — John was no sinner in view here — but a matter of range. A man from earth can only report earth's business, even when he reports it under inspiration.
John bears witness to the glory of Christ as coming from above — from heaven. So He must take a place above all who come from earth. John came from the earth, so he was earthly in character. He spoke only of earthly things: the Messiah and His earthly kingdom. The One who comes from heaven speaks of heavenly things which He has seen and heard. A prophet like John can speak only of earthly things. Even those are things still to come, which do not yet exist on earth. Christ, by contrast, speaks of actual things which exist in heaven.
This chapter draws the line between earthly and heavenly twice. That line also shows where to look for what in the Bible.
In this chapter both the Lord and the Baptist separate things earthly from things heavenly. They speak of Jesus as the great distinct prophet of the heavenly things. This prepares us for two conclusions. In the old prophets we must expect to find earthly things. In the teaching of Jesus to His apostles we must expect heavenly things. Hints of the heavenly things may be scattered or shining through the prophets. Hints of earthly or Jewish hopes and calling may also appear in the apostles. But the Spirit's main purpose through the prophets is to tell of the earth's interests. His main purpose through the apostles is to tell of the Church's heavenly interests.
The order of the verse matters. What Christ is comes first; what He says follows from it.
First "above all," as to Himself, His place, His Person; then testimony. John was merely a witness.
- Origin — the verse starts with "from above." What a person is decides what a person can say.
- Above all — coming from heaven puts Christ beyond comparison. Adam, Abraham, Enoch and Elijah could not stand on that ground.
- Undiminished — becoming man cost Him none of His dignity. His Person lifts humanity; humanity does not lower Him.
- Range — an earth-born prophet can speak only of what is still to come on earth. The One from heaven speaks of what He has seen there.
- Order — Person first, testimony second. John was only a witness, and he said so to disciples who wanted him bigger.
[and] what he has seen and has heard, this he testifies; and no one receives his testimony.
John the Baptist has just said that the One who comes from heaven is above all. Now he says what that Person does. He reports heaven itself. The verse ends with a verdict so bleak it has puzzled readers ever since — the perfect Witness meets an empty room.
Prophets before Him spoke of things still to come. The One from heaven speaks of what is already there.
John came from the earth. He was earthly in character, and spoke only of earthly things — the Messiah and His earthly kingdom. The One who comes from heaven speaks of heavenly things which He has seen and heard. A prophet like John is limited to earthly things. Even those are things still to come, which do not yet exist on earth. Christ, on the contrary, speaks of actual things which exist in heaven.
That difference is not one of degree but of source. A prophet delivered a message handed to him; Christ describes the place He came from.
Christ came from heaven, and spoke of what He Himself had seen and heard, not as a prophet — whether of future things, recalling the law of Moses, the servant of God, or of a Messiah to come, even upon the earth. No, Jesus spoke of the actual things which existed there, where He had come from. No one received His testimony, for these were heavenly things, things which existed in God's presence, of which He spoke: man did not understand them, and did not want them.
Nothing was lacking in the witness. That is what makes the closing words so heavy.
His testimony is perfect. What was there of God, of the Father, and this in heaven, that the Son had not seen and heard? There could be no defect in the glory He came from, or in the grace with which He made it all known to man. How crushing, then, is the sad result! ... But this is man's state through sin. It is not only the savage and the brutal. It is not only the idolater or the sceptic. It is also those who pride themselves on their religion — theory or practice, ordinances or tradition, effort, ecstasy, or experience. Of them all: "no one receives His testimony." Grace did open some hearts, here and there, now and then. But the point noted here is man's rejection of His testimony, not what sovereign mercy held in reserve when all was lost in sin and ruin.
The problem is not that the message was unclear. It is that the human heart has no appetite for its subject.
Put man as man in front of Christ Himself, telling these heavenly things, and man's heart will not have one of them. A man would have nothing to do with them. Put a natural man in heaven, and he would get out as fast as he could. He would not find a single thing there that he likes.
Receiving this witness costs something that mere agreement with evidence never costs.
So His testimony puts the heart fully to the test. It tells the truth about the sinner as plainly as it announces the grace of God. The heart resists the one and distrusts the other. The last thing a person submits to is to think badly of himself and well of God. But this is just the effect of receiving the testimony of Christ. We then begin to take God's side against ourselves.
Kelly draws the contrast with the crowd of John 2, who believed after seeing signs but were not trusted by Jesus — a faith "merely of the mind drawing a conclusion from the probabilities of the case."
Earlier in this chapter, verse 26 reports crowds coming to Jesus. Verse 32 seems to say the opposite.
Some have set "no one receives His testimony" against verse 26. But in verse 26 we meet with exaggerated enthusiasm.
The very next verse speaks of people who do receive the testimony.
Man was in such darkness, under the influence of the god of this world, that he refused the word spoken by the One whom God had sent. Even though the Son was rejected, it could still be said, "Whoever receives His testimony sets his seal to this, that God is true." Left to themselves, no one would have received the testimony of the Son. But God, in sovereign goodness, prepared a remnant to accept the wonderful news of the Son. And there are still those whom the Father draws to the Son to accept His testimony.
- Source. He does not pass on a message about heaven. He reports what He has seen and heard there — things that already exist in God's presence.
- Perfection. Nothing was missing in the witness — no defect in the glory He came from, and none in the grace with which He told it.
- Refusal. The failure is on man's side. Heaven holds nothing the natural heart wants. Religious people are as unwilling as anyone else.
- Test. This testimony tests people. Receiving it means thinking badly of yourself and well of God. That is not the same as being convinced by evidence.
- Exception. Some do receive it. Writers credit that to the Father drawing them to the Son, not to anything better in them.
He that has received his testimony has set to his seal that God is true;
The verse sits right after a bleak line: no one receives His testimony. So who is the exception, and what is a person doing when he sets his seal to God's word?
Read straight through, verse 32 and verse 33 look like they cancel each other out. One writer shows why they do not: one line describes man by nature, the other what God's Spirit produces.
The opening words of verse 33 appear to contradict the closing words of verse 32. But the contradiction is only in the wording. It rests on one of those general statements that appear so often in John's writings. Man in his natural condition is wholly dead and unresponsive to the divine testimony. That is the general statement at the close of verse 32. But God works by His Spirit in the hearts of some. So in practice we do find people who receive the testimony, and in doing so they set their seal that God is true. At the beginning the devil attacked the testimony God gave to Adam, and so sin came in. Faith vindicates the truth of the testimony, and so life and salvation are brought in.
Why do men turn it down? One writer points to what the testimony is about.
This testimony about heavenly things — things that exist in the presence of God — has no interest for men who neither understand nor want the things of heaven. No one, left to himself, receives the testimony of Christ. Faith alone can receive it. The one who receives the testimony does so on the authority of God; he sets his seal that God is true.
So what does the seal certify? One reference work names what the believer credits: what God says about man, and what God says about His salvation.
The believer credits what God says about man and what God says about His salvation. In doing so he attaches his seal — he vouches for the fact — that God is true.
Signing is not a formality. It commits the one who signs.
But the one who did receive His testimony was, by that act, fixing his seal to the fact that God is true. He had committed himself to this stand of confidence in Him.
So what makes faith real faith? Not the strength of the case, but the One who speaks.
This is the essential character of real, living faith. We receive His testimony because He gives it. Nothing is simpler — but we are not simple. Nothing is more right, or more due to Him — but we have been all wrong, and most wrong toward Him. We receive it because He says it, not because it seems reasonable, or wise, or good, or because of evidence of any kind... A divine testimony calls for a divine faith. Faith grounded on human motives is not divine. Only faith founded on God's word truly searches heart and conscience.
That has a sharp consequence. If I need someone else to guarantee God's word before I will trust it, my confidence is in the guarantor, not in God.
To receive the word of God on someone else's authority is to reject God's testimony. If I accept another person's account because you have put your name to it, that shows I do not believe the one who gave the account... To be saving, it must be faith in God, and "Whoever receives His testimony sets his seal to this, that God is true." The man who demands the church's authority before he will receive it has not done so.
There is no neutral verdict on a witness. Refusing the testimony is itself a judgment about the God who gave it.
As John 3:33 puts it, whoever receives His testimony sets his seal to this, that God is true. But the one who does not believe God carries the dreadful guilt of making Him a liar.
This is where assurance comes from. Taking God at His word is not presumption — it is repeating what God Himself has said.
For instance, I am a sinner — so how can I get into the Father's house? Because God has said, "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more." Well, God is true, and He will not remember them. Do you say I am presumptuous to say so? I do not say it; God says it... So when the power of the Spirit brings the word home, I have certainty.
- Testimony. Left to himself, no one receives Christ's testimony: man by nature is dead to it.
- Signature. To receive it is to attach your seal — to vouch, with your own name, that God is true.
- Authority. The seal counts only when you take the word because God said it — not because it sounds reasonable, and not because someone else vouched for it.
- Alternative. The one who refuses does not stay neutral; he charges God with lying.
- Certainty. When the Spirit brings God's word home, certainty follows: it rests on God's truthfulness, not on ours.
for he whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives not the Spirit by measure.
This verse gives the reason to trust what Jesus says: God sent Him, and God gives the Spirit without limit. Two questions follow — what makes His words unlike every prophet's before Him, and whether "without measure" is said only of Christ.
Three things stand together here, and each one is divine:
The believer has solid ground for receiving this testimony on God's authority. A Person sent by God brings a divine message, in the power of a divine Person. God sent Christ to speak God's word, in the power of the Spirit of God.
The phrase "the words of God" rules out the idea that Jesus was passing on insight that rose up from a human mind:
The whole of the New Testament presents the testimony of Christ as a testimony that comes straight from God. It is not the thoughts or longings of the human heart, but God's words. They are the words of One who could tell what was in heaven, while man was only dimly reaching after it, because He came down from heaven and spoke what He had seen, heard, and known there.
A testimony from God calls for a faith that rests on God, not on human reasons:
A divine testimony calls for a divine faith. Faith built on human motives is not divine. Only faith that rests on God's word truly searches the heart and conscience.
This stands against everything that came before. Earlier messengers each carried a portion. The Son carries the whole:
In earlier times God's messages came in pieces. Now He was not giving His Spirit by measure. Here was the Son Himself, the Beloved of the Father, and this love had put all things into His hand. So His words make known the full heart of God.
Set that beside the whole history of God speaking:
God had been giving testimony ever since He spoke to Adam about the trees of the Garden. Now it was reaching its climax in this One whom God had sent. He knew the heavenly things He spoke of by seeing them, He said them in "the words of God," and He had the Spirit without any measure or limit. So at last there was a testimony of infinite range and incomparable fullness.
The name "Christ" itself says the same thing. One writer draws it out of the fine flour and the oil:
We get the fine flour, the oil, and the frankincense on it — the perfect sweet aroma of His life to God. Not the aroma of the sacrifice, but the whole of His life, His words and works, a sinless Man passing through this world. All He said and did was by the Holy Spirit. He was the Anointed Man, which is what the name Messiah or Christ means.
Commentators differ here. Older English Bibles put the words "unto Him" in italics, to show that the translators added them. Some writers read the second half of the verse as a word about how God gives the Spirit at all:
You will note that "unto Him" is in italics. It was of course true of our Lord, but not only of Him. It marks the character of the order the Son of God brought in: those who are to share in it will also receive the Spirit. In Old Testament days God gave a servant a measure of spiritual power to do some work for Him, but He gave no one in that day the indwelling of the Spirit.
Others apply it first to Christ, yet hold the principle to be absolute, and press it against the idea that a Christian has only a portion of the Spirit:
The direct application of it is to Christ. I believe the principle to be absolute. When God gives His Spirit, He does not give Him by measure. He has given Him now, because Christ has ascended, and the Spirit is here. It is not a question of measure, but the presence of a Person who distributes, who unites, who leads, who bears witness.
This gift does not stand alone. It opens straight into the next verse, where the Father's love is named:
We have come to this great point: God does not give the Spirit by measure to His Son. Now another immense truth opens that was closed until now — "The Father loves the Son." Jesus revealed the Father, and the Spirit given fully proved Him to be the Son whom God loved. This is the blessed and glorious truth which shines on the whole and crowns it.
- Sent. The weight of the message rests on the Sender. God sent the Person, gave the message, and supplied the power.
- Spoken. His words were not human longing reaching up. They were God's own words, brought down by One who had seen heaven.
- Unmeasured. Earlier messages came in pieces. The Son has the Spirit without limit, so His testimony has infinite range and fullness.
- Anointed. The Spirit without measure marks Him as the Anointed Man. That is what the name Christ means. His every word and work was done in the Spirit's power.
- Crowned. Commentators differ on one point: does "without measure" describe only Christ, or also those who share in what the Son brought in? They agree on the crown of it — the gift proves the Father's love for the Son.
The Father loves the Son, and has given all things [to be] in his hand.
This verse closes John 3 by naming two things about Jesus: the Father's love for Him, and everything placed in His hand. Both stand behind all the Son does with people.
The verse marks a change of voice. One writer holds that John the Baptist's testimony ends with verse 34. Verse 35 comes from the Gospel writer:
The Baptist's testimony closes, without doubt, with verse 34. The Gospel writer then, guided by the Spirit of God, says, "The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand" (v. 35). The Lord Himself, in Matthew's Gospel, speaks in the same way — "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father" (11:27; see also Luke 10:22). But it was John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, who received the commission to reveal the Father's delight in the Son as the origin and source of the gift.
The chapter has already called Him bridegroom and heavenly witness. This verse goes higher.
He is "the Son," the special object of divine affection and honour. Here we rise far above His position either as the Messiah, the Bridegroom on the one hand, or the heavenly prophet on the other... Jesus is the Heir of all things. He is the Son of the Father in a way that belongs to Him alone — the true Isaac who remains for ever, the beloved Son who has all that He Himself has, and who has all given to be in His (the Son's) hand.
Why "all things"? Because the size of the gift shows the size of the love — and because only a divine Person could receive such a trust.
"The Father loves the Son;" for divine, infinite, unchanging, eternal love has always existed and must always exist between the Father and the Son... and to show the perfection of the love, He adds, "and has given all things into His hand." This shows us the Deity of the Son, who was able to receive all things into His hands, as no creature could do. It also shows the perfection of the Father's love, which held nothing back in giving everything into His hands. What other object could satisfy the Father's heart? Here we have perfect love in power — giving all things into His hands.
One writer sets this verse beside a later word of Jesus about what belongs to the Father.
John 16:15 gives our Lord pre-eminence from His own lips. Not of Person or relationship, which are both eternal, but of possessions. "All things that the Father has are Mine." Placing beside this the words of John 3:35, we get a most precious distinction. "The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand." If all things are given to Him as in Manhood, the same "all things" are HIS OWN as in Godhead.
The Bible describes the Son's place over all things in more than one way.
The Son created all things (John 1:3). All things were His, both as creator and as one with the Father. But as Man He received all things into His hand. The Father showed Him all things (John 5:20), and He had heard all things from the Father (John 15:15). Hebrews 2:8 puts all things under the feet of Jesus as Son of Man. In Ephesians 1, as the Man of God's purpose, all things are not only under His feet, but under His headship.
The gift is not only authority. It includes people.
Love confides, and love gives. Nothing is too great for love to bestow on the object of its choice. The Father's heart of infinite love has given all things into the hand of His ever-worthy Son. All things are given to Him, from authority over all flesh on the one hand to His own that are in the world on the other. How His heart was dwelling on His Father's love-gift as He exclaimed, "Yours they were, and You gave them to Me"!
This knowledge shaped what the Son did at supper.
He knew that universal glory and authority and pre-eminence were His; but that in no way altered His own personal lowliness and loveliness... "Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands," rose from supper, and stooped down, and washed the feet of His disciples. What a sight indeed! One so great and glorious at the feet of His followers!
- Love first. The verse starts with love, not with power. The giving flows from a love between Father and Son that always existed.
- Given without reserve. The Father keeps nothing back. Only a divine Person could receive such a trust; no creature could.
- Given to Him as Man. What the Son receives in manhood is already His own in Godhead. Receiving takes nothing from His glory.
- Given includes us. "All things" reaches from authority over all flesh down to His own people, whom the Father gave Him.
- Given, and He stooped. Knowing everything was in His hands, He rose from supper and washed His disciples' feet — greatness shown by service.
He that believes on the Son has life eternal, and he that is not subject to the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides upon him.
This chapter ends by dividing the whole human race in two. The dividing line is a Person. Everything turns on what a person does with the Son. Commentators press hard on three words: "has," "does not obey," and "remains."
(The writers below quote an older translation, which reads "believes not" where the ESV has "does not obey," and "abides" for "remains.")
The verse offers no middle ground:
Now we come to the result, as far as man is concerned, of the presence and work of Christ on earth, and of the going out of all in gospel testimony… For all it must be either the life or the wrath. The blessing cannot be had without faith in the Person in whom the blessing is.
The reason lies in what the Father has given the Son:
Further, as Son the Father loves Him, and has put all into His hand… He is set up as God's testimony, with God's words from heaven, from where He came… Eternal life and wrath depend on His being believed in or the contrary.
Earlier in the chapter the wording is that the believer should have eternal life. Here the tense changes, and the change matters:
If the word in John 3:15-16 is that the one who believes should have eternal life, it is very definite in John 3:36 of the same chapter that the believer on the Son has eternal life… We do not have to wait until we get to heaven to receive this divine life, or to learn whether it is ours. We have it now, and God's word assures us that we have it now.
What kind of unbelief does the verse mean? One writer answers:
The force of "the wrath of God abides on him" is that he has deserved it, and that if he rejects Christ, he lies under it still… In this last verse of the chapter "the wrath of God abides" if they do not bow to Christ's authority. It is not disobeying Him in the details of a command, or anything of that sort; the "believes not" means "is not subject to" Him.
Submission to Him is where real obedience starts, not where it ends:
Practical obedience flows from submission to His Person, and proves the reality of the heart-subjection of faith.
The change of title in the last clause is deliberate. Wrath is never named as the Father's toward His own:
He that believes not the Son — not obeying Him to whom the Father has given all things — "shall not see life, but the wrath… of God." Not the wrath of the Father. There is no wrath there, not an atom, but perfect fullness of blessing, of love. He is Father, always Father, and nothing but Father in love and perfectness: "the Father loves the Son."
This verse closes two doors. One is the idea that everyone is saved in the end. The other is the idea that the lost stop existing:
This verse entirely sets aside the notion of all being restored and eternally saved… It is quite true they shall not see life; but — tremendous fact! — "the wrath of God abides on him." This, beyond all question, flatly contradicts annihilationism. If the wrath of God is to remain on the unbeliever, it is utterly impossible that he can be made an end of. Annihilation and abiding wrath are completely incompatible. We must either erase the word "abiding" from the inspired page, or abandon the notion of annihilation entirely. To hold both is out of the question.
Yet this wrath is a present condition, and one thing can still change it:
The unbeliever is "judged already." His whole condition is settled by the very fact that he has rejected the Son of God. The wrath of God, instead of His favour, now rests on him and has become his condition. Only one thing reverses it: his coming to terms with the Son of God before it is too late. Otherwise that wrath becomes his fixed and abiding condition for an eternity without end.
Commentators differ over whether verses 35-36 continue John the Baptist's testimony or are the evangelist's own comment. One argues from the content itself:
I think the internal evidence is clear that the testimony of John the Baptist closes with verse 34, and that verses 35 and 36 are the comment of the Evangelist. For John's answer from verse 27, however given of God, does not go beyond the measure of his spiritual knowledge, while the closing verses 35 and 36 reflect the deeper and higher truth which the Lord taught His disciples.
Others hold the words are the Baptist's, and one writer notes that the question does not affect their authority — both men spoke by the same Spirit.
- Person — the verse sorts people by one thing: their response to the Son whom the Father loves and to whom He has given all things.
- Possession — "has" is present tense. The believer holds eternal life now, on the authority of God's word, and does not wait for it in heaven.
- Posture — "does not obey" means refusing to be subject to Him. Real obedience in daily life grows out of that submission and proves it genuine.
- Present wrath — wrath is not only a future warning. It rests on the unbeliever already, and it is God's wrath, never the Father's toward His own.
- Permanence — "remains" rules out both universal salvation and annihilation. Yet the condition can change: a person may still come to terms with the Son before it is too late.