Behold The Lamb Of God: An Exposition Of John 1:29-34

Behold the Lamb of God: An Exposition of John 1:29-34

We now come to where we would expect the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. What is described in this passage, such as the Spirit descending and resting upon Jesus is recorded in the other gospels. But there is no direct mention of Jesus’ baptism. John’s gospel seems to be full of mysterious lapses such as these. Most notable is the omission of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, even though John describes details consistent with the other gospels. But where Luke mentions a dispute at the Last Supper which Jesus verbally addresses, John mentions the foot washing which also addresses the problem which Luke brings up. Scholars are divided over whether John was familiar with one or more of the gospels. Whereas this might be an interesting speculation, we must remember that the Holy Spirit is the author of all Scripture and uses human personalities to express Himself. For purposes known to God, John’s gospel seems to go in a parallel direction. Yet the witness John bears is consistent with the portrait of Jesus in the other gospels. The same is true of the testimony they bear of John the Baptist. It sort of makes in a sense John the Paul Harvey of gospel writers who brings the rest of the story.

What is important about the gospels is the testimony they tell of the person of Jesus Christ. In courtroom testimony, witnesses of a certain event are called upon to testify of what they have seen or heard. So what makes the testimony of witnesses valid? If the testimonies completely disagree in substance, then one or both of the testimonies is highly suspect, and the jury must decide who if anyone is telling the truth. But there is an equal problem if the testimony is identical. One should suspect that the witnesses have been coached as it is well known that people see an event from different perspectives. What makes a testimony valid is that the witness agree on the central details. If the testimonies agree on these vital facts, then the testimony is to be believed.

In the gospels, we have three which are similar, similar enough that many scholars see a common source to them, whether that be Mark, or an earlier gospel now lost. So some would dismiss this as being one testimony and not by itself valid as it takes at least two independent witnesses. So then we have John who seems quite independent of these so-called “synoptic gospels.” And even though John records events the other gospels omit, and John seems to omit much which is recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke, the gospels all unite on the central facts. Jesus was born, lived among mankind, taught, did miracles, was accepted by some and rejected by others. The things which Jesus did and said show that He was more than a human being, but God incarnate. He was crucified and buried. On the Third Day, He rose from the dead. He ascended. He was the One who baptized the early believers with the Holy Ghost. He promised He would return. John the Baptist’s presentation in the gospels is very similar.

In saying that there are differences, I am not saying that the events presented in the gospels are not historical, or that the details presented are in error. Many have tried to harmonize the gospels, and I will leave you to study them if you so wish. We can reliably trust all of these human witnesses, who by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote their gospels. We should look at the unity presented by their blessed diversity.

Getting back to the text, we see this section begin with “on the next day.” If we look back, then on the previous day, we see John the Baptist testifying of one who already stood in their midst that they did not know. He had denied that he was the Messiah, Elijah or the prophet. We need to hold on to this as we look into this passage. As we go through John, we will see that he is infatuated with time, both natural and cosmic. We will see this time marker come up twice later in this chapter which makes a three-day sequence. The number three is frequent in John, especially in relation to Peter who denies three times that he will deny Jesus, denies Him three times, and then affirms him three times.

The text then says literally: “John sees Jesus coming.” We would expect the past tense “John saw Jesus coming.” This is what most English translations render. Greek tends to follow the same rules of tense that English does, so why is the present tense used? Greek has a simple past called the Aorist tense. John uses the aorist tense correctly many times. So it isn’t a matter that John who was a Jew might have been clumsy in his Greek which was a foreign tongue. But in the structure of all languages is a means of introducing the unexpected for emphasis. Each language has its own way of expressing this. By willful departing from the normal was of expression, it puts emphasis upon what stands out. So John says “He sees.” The technical use of this Greek verb is called a “historical present.” The use of the historical present is to transport the reader or listener back to the scene, to include them in it. It is as though we were at the Jordan River with John and with him saw Jesus coming. So it is important for us to see and experience John’s view of Jesus personally. As this isn’t physically possible, we must be transported there in mind and spirit. So imagine that you are standing next to John on that day. Imagine what that day would have been like, if only you had been there.