John 3:25

Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(25) Then there arose a question.—For “the Jews,” the reading of the better MSS. is, a Jew. The question arose on the side of John’s disciples. What the exact nature of it was we do not know, and have no means of judging. It was one of the questions which in every age has arisen about external rites, and has too often been accompanied by a neglect of inner principles. This arose in some way from the fact of the disciples of Jesus baptising near to the place where John was baptising, and doubtless was closely connected with these baptisms. The fact is only preserved as an incidental introduction to the remarkable testimony of the Baptist which follows.

Benson Commentary

John 3:25-26. Then there arose a question — Or a dispute; between some of John’s disciples and the Jews — Or rather, a certain Jew: for, “though the common editions read Jews, the greater number of MSS., among which are some of the most valuable, some ancient expositors also, and critics read, a Jew, in the singular; with which agrees both the Syriac versions. To which may be added some of our best modern critics, as Grotius, Cocceius, Hammond, Mill, and Wetstein.” — Campbell. About purifying — That is, as appears from the sequel, about baptisms, and other legal ablutions. The Jews called all sorts of ablutions, prescribed by their teachers, purifications. The subject, therefore, of this debate, seems to have been, how Jesus, who had been himself baptized by John, came to rebaptize John’s disciples, (Acts 19:4-5,) that is, assume greater authority than John, and virtually declare that his baptism was inefficacious for the purposes of purification. And they came unto John — The Baptist’s disciples, though they had often heard their master speak on the subject, not understanding the subserviency of his ministry to that of Jesus, were unable to give their antagonists a satisfactory answer, so they came and proposed their question to John himself; and said, He to whom thou barest witness — Gavest such an honourable testimony; behold, the same baptizeth — People that come to him from all parts, yea, even such as have before received thy baptism. They seem to have been apprehensive that this would cause John’s baptism to be neglected, and would tend to the injury of his character.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

3:22-36 John was fully satisfied with the place and work assigned him; but Jesus came on a more important work. He also knew that Jesus would increase in honour and influence, for of his government and peace there would be no end, while he himself would be less followed. John knew that Jesus came from heaven as the Son of God, while he was a sinful, mortal man, who could only speak about the more plain subjects of religion. The words of Jesus were the words of God; he had the Spirit, not by measure, as the prophets, but in all fulness. Everlasting life could only be had by faith in Him, and might be thus obtained; whereas all those, who believe not in the Son of God, cannot partake of salvation, but the wrath of God for ever rests upon them.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

A question - Rather a controversy a dispute.

John's disciples - Those who had been baptized by him, and who attached great efficacy and importance to the teaching of their master. Compare the notes at Acts 19:1-5.

And the Jews - Many manuscripts, some of the fathers, and the ancient Syriac version read this in the singular number "with A Jew," one who, it is commonly supposed, had been baptized by the disciples of Jesus.

About purifying - What the precise subject of this dispute was we do not know. From what follows, it would seem probable that it was about the comparative value and efficacy of the baptism performed by John and by the disciples of Jesus. The word "purifying" may be applied to baptism, as it was an emblem of repentance and purity, and was thus used by the Jews, by John, and by Jesus. About this subject it seems that a dispute arose, and was carried to such a length that complaint was made to John. From this we may learn:

1. that even in the time of Jesus, when the gospel began to be preached, there was witnessed what has been ever since - unhappy disputings on the subject of religion. Even young converts may, By overheated zeal and ignorance, fall into angry discussion.

2. that such discussions are commonly about some unimportant matter of religion - something which they may not yet be qualified to understand, and which does not materially affect them if they could.

3. that such disputes are often connected with a spirit of proselytism - with boasting of the superior excellence of the sect with which "we" are connected, or in connection with whom we have been converted, and often with a desire to persuade others to join with us.

4. that such a spirit is eminently improper on such occasions. Love should characterize the feelings of young converts; a disposition to inquire and not to dispute; a willingness that all should follow the dictates of their own consciences, and not a desire to proselyte them to our way of thinking or to our church. It may be added that there is scarcely anything which so certainly and effectually arrests a revival of religion as such a disposition to dispute, and to make proselytes to particular modes of faith, and of administering the ordinances of the gospel.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

25, 26. between some of—rather, "on the part of."

and the Jews—rather (according to the best manuscripts), "and a Jew,"

about purifying—that is, baptizing, the symbolical meaning of washing with water being put (as in Joh 2:6) for the act itself. As John and Jesus were the only teachers who baptized Jews, discussions might easily arise between the Baptist's disciples and such Jews as declined to submit to that rite.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

The Jews had so many purifyings, some legal, instituted by God, ordained by Moses as God’s minister; some traditional, brought in by the Pharisees, as their washings before meat, Matthew 15:1-20 Mark 7:1-23; that seemeth a hard thing to determine what the question was between John’s disciples and the Jews, about what purifying; and the boldest determiners in this case are no better than guessers. Some would have baptism to be meant here by

purifying. It would much conduce to the resolution of the question if we knew what these Jews were with whom John’s disciples argued. If they were of the Pharisees, it is probable the question was about John’s baptism, considering the frequent washings and purifyings that they had in use amongst them. If they were other Jews, the question might be about the virtue and efficacy of the ceremonial washings, ordained by the law of God, whether they were mere types, and now to cease? Whether in themselves they conduced any thing to the washing and cleansing of a soul? If these Jews were (as some think, but I know not how it can be proved) disciples of Christ, the question might be about John’s and Christ’s baptism. This notion seemeth to be favoured by what went before; where the evangelist had been speaking of baptism, as administered by Christ’s disciples, and by John; as also from what followeth, viz. John’s disciples coming to him and complaining, that Christ by his disciples baptized more than their master. But there seemeth to be this great prejudice against the notion of those learned men that have embraced that notion, viz. That the question is said to have risen between John’s disciples and the Jews; now we want an instance in Scripture, where the disciples of John are put in opposition to the disciples of Christ, and under notion of the Jews; the term Jews generally signifying that part of the people who adhered to the Judaical rites and religion; especially where (as here) it is used in opposition either to the disciples of John or of Christ. It is most probable therefore the question was, either about the washings ordained by the law of Moses, or about the traditional washings observed by the Pharisees.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Then there arose a question,.... A dispute, or controversy, occasioned by the baptism, of John and Christ:

between some of John's disciples, and the Jews. The Syriac and Persic versions read, "between one of John's disciples, and a certain Jew"; and Nonnus renders it, "with an Hebrew man"; and so the Alexandrian manuscript; many others read, "with a Jew": the contention between them was

about purifying; either about the ceremonial purifications, and ablutions commanded in the law of Moses; or concerning the various washings of persons, and vessels, according to the traditions of the elders, which the Jews in common were very tenacious of; and which they thought were brought into neglect, and contempt, by the baptism of John: and this seems to have been occasioned by the baptism of Christ; which the Jew might improve against the disciple of John, and urge, that since another, besides his master, had set up baptizing, who could tell which was most right and safest to follow? and therefore it would have been much better, if no such rite at all had been used by any, but that the purifications required by the law of Moses, and by their elders, had been strictly and solely attended to.

Geneva Study Bible

{8} Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying.

(8) Satan inflames the disciples of John with a fond emulation of their master in order to hinder the course of the gospel: but John, being mindful of his office, not only puts a stop to their endeavours, but also takes occasion by that means to give testimony of Christ, that in him alone the Father has set forth everlasting life.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

John 3:25-26. Οὖν] in consequence of the narration of John 3:23 (John 3:24 being a parenthetical remark). Nothing is known more particularly as to this question (ζήτησις) which arose among John’s disciples (ἐγένετο ἐκ τῶν μαθ. Ἰωάνν, comp. Lucian. Alex. 40; Herod. v. 21). The theme of it was “concerning purification” (περὶ καθαρισμοῦ), and, according to the context, it did not refer to the usual prescriptions and customs in general (Weizsäcker), but had a closer reference to the baptism of John and of Jesus, and was discussed with a Jew, who probably placed the baptism of Jesus, as being of higher and greater efficacy with regard to the power of purifying (from the guilt of sin), above that of John. Comp. John 3:26. Possibly the prophetic idea of a consecration by purification preceding the Messiah’s kingdom (Ezekiel 36:25; Zechariah 13:1; Hofm. Weissag. u. Erf. II. 87) was spoken of. Who the Ἰουδαῖος was (Hofmann, Tholuck, a Pharisee) cannot be determined. A Jewish Christian (Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, and others; also Ewald) would have been more exactly designated. According to Luthardt, it was an unfriendly Jew who declared that the baptism of John might now at length be dispensed with, and who wished thus to beguile the Baptist to become unfaithful to his calling, by which means he hoped the better to work against Jesus. An artificial combination unsupported by the text, or even by ᾧ σὺ μεμαρτύρηκας, John 3:26. For that this indicated a perplexity on the part of the disciples as to the calling of their master finds no support in the words of the Baptist which follow. There is rather expressed in that ᾧ σὺ μεμαρτ., and in all that John’s disciples advance,—who therefore do not name Jesus, but only indicate Him,—a jealous irritation on the point, that a man, who himself had just gone forth from the fellowship of the Baptist, and who owed his standing to the testimony borne by the latter in his favour (ᾧ), should have opened such a competition with him as to throw him into the shade. Through the statements of the Jew, with whom they had been discussing the question of purification, there was awakened in them a certain feeling of envy that Jesus, the former pupil (as they thought), the receiver of a testimony at the hand of their master, should now presume to put himself forward as his superior rival. They saw in this a usurpation, which they could not reconcile with the previous position of Jesus in relation to the Baptist. But he, on the contrary, vindicates Jesus, John 3:27, and in John 3:28 brings into view His far higher position, which excluded all jealousy.

ὃς ἦν μετὰ σοῦ, κ.τ.λ.] John 1:28-29.

ἴδε and οὗτος have the emphasis of something unexpected; namely, that this very individual should (according to their view) interfere with their master in his vocation, and with such results!

καὶ πάντες, an exaggeration of excited feeling. Comp. John 12:19. Not: “all who submit to be baptized by Him” (Hengstenberg).

Expositor's Greek Testament

John 3:25. ἐγένετο οὖν ζήτησις … There arose therefore—that is, in consequence of the proximity of these two baptisms—on the part of John’s disciples [ἐκ, cf. Herod. John 3:21 and Dionys. Hal. viii. p. 556] a questioning, or discussion, with a Jew about purifying, that is, generally, including the relation of those two baptisms to one another, and to the Jewish washings, and the significance of each. The trend of the discussion may be gathered from the complaint to the Baptist, John 3:26. As the discussion was begun by the disciples of John, it would seem as if they had challenged the Jew for seeking baptism from Jesus. For their complaint is (John 3:26) Ῥαββί … πρὸς αὐτόν. That Jesus should baptise as well as John they could not understand. Really, the difficulty is that Jesus should have allowed John to go on baptising, and that John should not himself have professed discipleship of Jesus. But so long as John saw that men were led by his preaching to accept the Messiah he might well believe that he served Christ better thus than by following in His train.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

25. Then there arose] Better, there arose therefore; i.e. in consequence of John’s baptizing at Aenon.

a question] Or, questioning.

between some of John’s disciples and the Jews] Better, on the part of John’s disciples with a Jew. ‘A Jew’ for ‘Jews’ is the reading of the best authorities. We do not know what the question was; probably the efficacy of John’s baptism as compared with Christ’s, or as compared with the ordinary ceremonial washings, for purifying from sin. There is no clue as to who this Jew was. His question makes the disciples of John go at once to their master for his opinion about Jesus and His success.

Bengel's Gnomen

John 3:25. Οὖν, Accordingly) There is reference to John 3:22; comp. John 3:26, “They came unto John and said, Rabbi, He that was with thee beyond Jordan,” etc., “the same baptizeth,” etc.—ζήτησις) A question, a temperate one: not a quarrel.—ἐκ, on the part of) The question was mooted by the disciples of John.—μετὰ Ἰουδαίων) with the Jews, those who now no longer resorted to John, but to Jesus; whilst the disciples of John were contending, that purifying ought to be sought from John.—καθαρισμοῦ, purifying) from sins. Mark 1:4, “John did baptize,” etc., “and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” Comp. Ephesians 5:26, “That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.” A word of frequent use among the Jews. Comp. Hebrews 9:13-14, “If the blood of bulls and goats,” etc., “sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ,” etc., “purge your conscience;” 2Ma 1:36, Νέφθαρ, ὃ διερμηνεύεται Καθαρισμός: John 2:16, ἄγειν τὸν καθαρισμόν. John nowhere employs the terms, a baptism, a baptizing [baptisma, baptismus], the Baptist; see John 3:5, “be born of water” [not, be baptized]; nay, even to express Levitical baptism he uses the term, purifying, ch. John 2:6.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 25. - There arose therefore a questioning on the part of John's disciples with a Jew about purifying. Such proximity of two such leaders, teaching and proclaiming the kingdom of heaven, and baptizing into a glorious hope, a Divine future, and a spiritual change, was certain to excite controversy. The word (ζήτησις) "questioning" is used in Acts 15:2 for the dispute at Antioch, and Paul uses the same phrase for dangerous, useless, and angry debate (1 Timothy 6:4; 2 Timothy 2:23; Titus 3:9). It was, perhaps, not the first, and certainly it was not the last, of the controversies which raged over the symbolic purification of the Church. John's disciples appear to have taken up arms against some particular Jew, who was prepared either to question the right of Jesus to baptize, or the essential value of this ordinance. This "Jew" was apparently maintaining a greater potency for the baptism of Jesus than John could claim for his, and was basing his view upon the testimony which John had already borne to Jesus. Purifying was the great theme of Essenic and Pharisaic profession. It was without doubt one of the great symbolic purposes of the Levitical legislation. The purification of the flesh was, however, in Christ's teaching, a very small part of the claim for purity. Nothing less than a spiritual and radical moral change availed, and our Lord insisted on this to the disparagement of the mere ceremonial. This was the first recorded discussion on the nature and value of baptismal purifying. Would that it had been the last! The question arose among those who had been baptized by John, whether another had any right to administer such an ordinance? Could another receive the confession of sins? Was the baptism of John to terminate now that he had come of whom John himself had said, "This is he that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit" John 3:25

Vincent's Word Studies

Then (οὖν)

Not a particle of time but of consequence; therefore, because of both Jesus and John baptizing.

Question (ζήτησις)

Rev., more correctly, questioning. Question would be ζήτημα, always in the sense of a question in debate. The word here represents the process of inquiry.

Between (ἐκ)

Rev., correctly, on the part of. Literally, proceeding from. The rendering of the A.V. does not show with which party the discussion originated. The Greek distinctly states that the question was raised by the disciples of the Baptist.

The Jews

The best texts read Ἱουδαίου, with a Jew. Possibly one who asserted that John's baptism might now be dispensed with.

Purifying

Probably not about the familiar ceremonial purifications, but as to whether the baptism of Jesus or of John had the greater purifying power.