Lecture 14 — Coming of Christ to John

^1:29^ The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him, and he said: behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sin of the world. [n. 254]

^1:30^ This is he, of whom I said: after me there comes a man who ranks ahead of me: because he existed before me. [n. 260]

^1:31^ And I did not know him, but that he may be made manifest in Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water. [n. 263]

^1:32^ And John gave testimony, saying: I saw the Spirit coming down, as a dove from heaven, and he rested upon him. [n. 267]

^1:33^ And I did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water, said to me: he upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining upon him, it is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. [n. 274]

^1:34^ And I have seen, and I have given testimony, that this is the Son of God. [n. 278]

253. Above, John had given testimony to Christ when he was questioned. Here, he gives a voluntary testimony.

First, he gives the testimony; second, he confirms it, at and John gave testimony.

As to the first:

first, the circumstances of the testimony are given; and

second, the testimony itself is given, at behold the Lamb of God;

third, suspicion is removed from the witness, at and I did not know him.

254. The circumstances are first described as to the time. Hence he says, the next day. This gives credit to John for his steadfastness, because he bore witness to Christ not for just one day or once, but on many days and frequently: every day I will bless you (Ps 144:2). His progress, too, is cited, because one day should not be just like the day before, but the succeeding day should be different, i.e., better: they will go from strength to strength (Ps 83:8).

Another circumstance mentioned is his manner of testifying, because John saw Jesus. This shows his certitude, for testimony based on sight is most certain.

The last circumstance he mentions is about the one to whom he bore witness. Hence he says that he saw Jesus coming to him, i.e., from Galilee, as it says, Jesus came from Galilee (Matt 3:13). We should not understand this as referring to the time when he came to be baptized, of which Matthew is here speaking, but of another time, i.e., a time when he came to John after he had already been baptized and was staying near the Jordan. Otherwise, he would not have said, he upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining upon him, it is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen. Therefore, he had already seen him and the Spirit come down as a dove upon him.

255. One reason why Christ now came to John was to confirm the testimony of John. For John had spoken of Christ as the same is he who will come after me (John 1:27). But since Christ was now present, some might not understand who it was that was to come. So Christ came to John to be pointed out by him, with John saying, behold the Lamb of God (John 1:36).

Another reason Christ came was to correct an error. For some might believe that the first time Christ came, i.e., to be baptized, he came to John to be cleansed from his sins. So, in order to preclude this, Christ came to him even after his baptism. Accordingly, John clearly says, behold him who takes away. He committed no sin, but came to take away sin. He also came to give us an example of humility, because as it is said, the greater you are the more humble you should be in all matters (Sir 3:20).

Note that after the conception of Christ, when his mother, the Virgin, went in haste to the mountainous country to visit John’s mother, Elizabeth, that John, still in his mother’s womb and unable to speak, leaped in her womb as though performing a religious dance out of reverence for Christ. And as then, so even now; for when Christ comes to John out of humility, John offers his testimony and reverence and breaks out saying, behold the Lamb of God.

256. With these words John gives his testimony showing the power of Christ. Then Christ’s dignity is shown, at this is he, of whom I said.

He shows the power of Christ in two ways:

first, by means of a symbol;

second, by explaining it, at behold him who takes away the sins of the world.

257. As to the first, we should note, as Origen says, that it was customary in the old law for five animals to be offered in the temple: three from the earth, namely, the heifer, goat and sheep, although the sheep might be a ram, a sheep or a lamb; and two birds, namely, the turtle-dove and the dove. All of these were prefigurements of the true sacrifice, which is Christ, who gave himself for us as an offering to God (Eph 5:2).

Why then did the Baptist, when giving witness to Christ, specifically call him a Lamb? The reason for this is that, although there were other sacrifices in the temple at other times, yet each day there was a time in which a lamb was offered every morning, and another was offered in the evening (Num 28:3). This never varied, but was regarded as the principal offering, and the other offerings were in the form of additions. And so the lamb, which was the principal sacrifice, signified Christ, who is the principal sacrifice. For although all the saints who suffered for the faith of Christ contribute something to the salvation of the faithful, they do this only inasmuch as they are immolated upon the oblation of the Lamb, they being, as it were, an oblation added to the principal sacrifice. The lamb is offered in the morning and in the evening because it is through Christ that the way is opened to the contemplation and enjoyment of the intelligible things of God, and this pertains to morning knowledge; and we are instructed how to use earthly things without staining ourselves, and this pertains to the evening. And so he says, behold the Lamb of God, i.e., the one signified by the lamb.

He says, of God, because there are two natures in Christ, a human nature and a divine nature. And it is due to the power of the divinity that this sacrifice has the power to cleanse and sanctify us from our sins, inasmuch as God was, in Christ, reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor 5:19).

Or, he is called the Lamb of God, because offered by God, i.e., by Christ himself, who is God; just as we call what a man offers the offering of the man. Or, he is called the Lamb of God, that is, of the Father, because the Father provided man with an oblation to offer that satisfied for sins, which man could not have through himself. So when Isaac asked Abraham, where is the victim for the holocaust? he answered, God himself will provide a victim for the holocaust (Gen 22:7); God did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for all of us (Rom 8:32).

258. Christ is called a lamb, first, because of his purity: your lamb will be without blemish (Exod 12:5); you were not redeemed by perishable gold or silver (1 Pet 1:18). Second, because of his gentleness: like a lamb before the shearer, he will not open his mouth (Isa 53:7). Third, because of his fruit; both with respect to what we put on: lambs will be your clothing (Prov 27:26), put on the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 13:14); and with respect to food: my flesh for the life of the world (John 6:52). And it is said: send forth, O Lord, the lamb, the ruler of the earth (Isa 16:1).

259. Then when he says, who takes away the sins of the world, he explains the symbol he used. In the law, sin could not be taken away either by a lamb or by any other sacrifice, because as it is said, it is impossible that sins be taken away by the blood of bulls and goats (Heb 10:4).

This blood takes away, i.e., removes, the sins of the world; take away all iniquity (Hos 14:3); or, takes away, i.e., he takes upon himself the sins of the whole world, as is said, he bore our sins in his own body (1 Pet 2:24); it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he endured (Isa 53:4).

However, according to a Gloss, he says sin, and not sins, in order to show in a universal way that he has taken away every kind of sin: he is the offering for our sins (1 John 2:2); or because he died for one sin, that is, original sin: sin entered into this world through one man (Rom 5:12).

260. Above, the Baptist bore witness to the power of Christ; now he bears witness to his dignity, comparing Christ to himself in three respects.

First, with respect to their office and order of preaching. So he says, this is he, that is the Lamb, pointing him out with his finger, of whom I said, i.e., in his absence, after me there comes a man, to preach and baptize, who in birth came after me. Christ is called a man by reason of his perfect age, because when he began to teach, after his baptism, he had already reached a perfect age: Jesus was now about thirty years of age (Luke 3:23). He is also called a man because of the perfection of all the virtues that were in him: seven women, i.e., the virtues, will take hold of one man, the perfect Christ (Isa 4:1); look, a man! His name is the Orient (Zech 6:12), because he is the origin of all the virtues found in others. He is also called a man because of his espousal, since he is the spouse of the Church: you will call me ‘my husband’ (Hos 2:16); I espoused you to one husband (2 Cor 11:2).

261. Second, he compares himself to Christ with respect to dignity when he says, who ranks ahead of me. As if to say: Although he comes to preach after me, yet he ranks ahead of me in dignity. See, he comes, leaping upon the mountains, skipping over the hills (Song 2:8). One such hill was John the Baptist, who was passed over by Christ, as is said, he must increase, but I must decrease (John 3:30).

262. Third, he compares himself to Christ with respect to duration, saying, because he existed before me. As if to say: it is not strange if he ranks ahead of me in dignity; because although he is after me in time, he is before me in eternity, because he existed before me.

This statement refutes a twofold error. First, that of Arius, for John does not say that he was made before me, as though he were a creature, but he existed before me, from eternity, before every creature: the Lord brought me forth before all the hills (Prov 8:25). The second error refuted is that of Paul of Samosata: for John said, he existed before me, in order to show that he did not take his beginning from Mary. For if he had taken the beginning of his existence from the Virgin, he would not have existed before the precursor, who, in the order of human generation, preceded Christ by six months.

263. Next, he precludes an erroneous conjecture from his testimony, at and I did not know him.

For someone might say that John bore witness to Christ because of the affection of an especial friendship which he had for him. And so, excluding this, John says, and I did not know him; for John had lived in the desert from boyhood. And although many miracles happened during the birth of Christ, such as the Magi and the star and others, they were not known to John: both because he was an infant at the time, and because, after withdrawing to the desert, he had no association with Christ. In the interim between his birth and baptism, Christ did not perform any miracles, but led a life similar to any other person, and his power remained unknown to all.

264. It is clear that he worked no miracles in the interim until he was thirty years old from what is said: Jesus did this beginning of miracles in Cana of Galilee (John 2:11). This shows the error of the book, The Infancy of the Savior. The reason he performed no miracles during this period was that if his life had not been like that of other infants, the mystery of the circumcision and incarnation might have been regarded as pure fancy. Accordingly, he postponed showing his knowledge and power to another time, corresponding to the age when other men reach the fullness of their knowledge and power. About this we read, and Jesus increased in grace and wisdom (Luke 2:52); not that he acquired a power and wisdom that he previously lacked, for in this respect he was perfect from the instant of his conception, but because his power and wisdom were becoming known to men: indeed, you are a hidden God (Isa 45:15).

265. The reason why John did not know him was that he had so far seen no signs, and no one else had known Christ through signs. Hence he adds: but that he may be made manifest in Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water. As if to say: my entire ministry is to reveal: he was not the light, but that he might bear witness to the light (John 1:8).

266. He says, I came baptizing with water, to distinguish his baptism from that of Christ. For Christ baptized not just in water, but in the Spirit, conferring grace; and so the baptism of John was merely a sign, and not causative.

John’s baptism made Christ known in three ways. First, by the preaching of John. For although John could have prepared the way for the Lord and led the people to Christ without baptizing, yet because of the novelty of the service many more came to him than would have come if his preaching were done without baptism. Second, John’s baptism was useful because of Christ’s humility, which he showed by willing to be baptized by John: Christ came to John, to be baptized by him (Matt 3:13). This example of humility he gives us here is that no one, however great, should disdain to receive the sacraments from any person ordained for this purpose. Third, because it was during Christ’s baptism by John that the power of the Father was present in the voice, and the Holy Spirit was present in the dove, by which the power and dignity of Christ were all the more shown: and the voice of the Father was heard: this is my beloved Son (Luke 3:22).

267. Then when he says, and John gave testimony, he confirms by the authority of God the great things he testified to about Christ, that Christ alone would take away the sins of the whole world.

As to this he does three things.

First, he presents a vision.

Second, he tells us the meaning of the vision, at and I did not know him.

Third, he shows what he learned from this vision, at and I have seen, and I have given testimony.

268. He presents the vision when he says, I saw the Spirit coming down, as a dove from heaven. When this actually happened John the Evangelist does not tell us, but Matthew and Luke say that it took place when Christ was being baptized by John.

And it was indeed fitting for the Holy Spirit to be present at this baptism and to the person being baptized. It was appropriate for the one baptized, for as the Son, existing by the Father, manifests the Father: Father, I have manifested your name (John 17:6), so the Holy Spirit, existing by the Son, manifests the Son, he will glorify me, because he will receive from of mine (John 16:14). It was appropriate for this baptism because the baptism of Christ begins and consecrates our baptism. Now our baptism is consecrated by invoking the whole Trinity: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). Thus, the ones we invoke in our baptism were present at the baptism of Christ: the Father in the voice, the Holy Spirit in the dove, and the Son in his human nature.

269. He says, coming down, because descent, since it has two termini, the start, which is from above, and the end, which is below, suits baptism in both respects.

For there is a twofold spirit: one of the world and the other of God. The spirit of the world is the love of the world, which is not from above; rather, it comes up to man from below and makes him descend. But the Spirit of God, i.e., the love of God, comes down to man from above and makes him ascend: we have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:12). And so, because that Spirit is from above, he says, coming down.

Similarly, because it is impossible for the creature to receive God’s goodness in the fullness in which it is present in God, the communication of this goodness to us is in a way a certain coming down: every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights (Jas 1:17).

270. Because the Holy Spirit cannot be seen in his own nature, as is said, the wind blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes (John 3:8), and because a spirit does not come down but goes up, the spirit lifted me up (Ezek 8:3). Therefore, the Evangelist, in describing the manner of the vision and of the coming down, says that the Holy Spirit did not appear in the spirit, i.e., in his nature, but in the form of a dove, saying, that he came as a dove.

It was appropriate that the Son of God, who was made visible through flesh, should be made known by the Holy Spirit in the visible form of a dove. However, the Holy Spirit did not assume the dove into a unity of person, as the Son of God assumed human nature. The reason for this is that the Son did not appear as a manifester but as a savior. And so, according to Pope Leo, it was appropriate that he be God and man: God, in order to provide a remedy; and man, in order to offer an example. But the Holy Spirit appeared only to make known, and for this it was sufficient merely to assume a visible form which was suitable for this purpose.

271. As to whether this dove was a real animal and whether it existed prior to its appearance, it seems reasonable to say that it was a real dove. For the Holy Spirit came to manifest Christ, who, being the truth, ought to have been manifested only by the truth.

As to the other part of the question, it would seem that the dove did not exist prior to its appearance, but was formed at the time by the divine power, without any parental union, as the body of Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and not from a man’s seed. Yet it was a real dove, for as Augustine says in his work, The Christian Combat: it was not difficult for the omnipotent God, who produced the entire universe of creatures from nothing, to form a real body for the dove without the aid of other doves, just as it was not difficult to form the true body of Christ in the womb of the Blessed Virgin without natural semen. Cyprian, in his The Unity of the Church, says: it is said that the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove because the dove is a simple harmless animal, not bitter with gall, not savage with its bites, not fierce with rending talons; it loves the dwellings of men, is able to live together in one nest, together it raises its young, they remain together when they fly, spend their life in mutual association, signify the concord of peace with the kiss of their bill, and fulfill the law of harmony in all things.

272. Many reasons are given why the Holy Spirit appeared as a dove rather than in some other form. First, because of its simplicity, for the dove is simple: be wise as serpents, and simple as doves (Matt 10:16). And the Holy Spirit, because he inclines souls to gaze on one thing, that is, God, makes them simple; and so he appeared in the form of a dove. Further, according to Augustine, the Holy Spirit also appeared in the form of fire over the heads of the assembled apostles. This was done because some are simple, but lukewarm; while others are fervent but guileful. And so in order that those sanctified by the Spirit may have no guile, the Spirit is shown in the form of a dove; and in order that their simplicity may not grow tepid, the Spirit is shown in fire.

A dove was used, second, because of the unity of charity; for the dove is much aglow with love: one is my dove (Song 6:9). So, in order to show the unity of the Church, the Holy Spirit appears in the form of a dove. Nor should it disturb you that when the Holy Spirit rested on each of the disciples, there appeared separate tongues of fire; for although the Spirit appears to be different according to the different functions of his gifts, he nevertheless unites us through charity. And so, because of the first he appeared in separate tongues of fire, as is said, there are different kinds of gifts (1 Cor 12:4); but he appears in the form of a dove because of the second.

A dove was used, third, because of its groaning, for the dove has a groaning chant; so also the Holy Spirit pleads for us with indescribable groanings (Rom 8:26); her maidens, groaning like doves (Neh 2:7).

Fourth, because of the doves fertility, for the dove is a very prolific animal. And so in order to signify the fecundity of spiritual grace in the Church, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. This is why the Lord commanded an offering of two doves (Lev 5:7).

A dove was used, fifth, because of its cautiousness. For it rests upon watery brooks, and gazing into them can see the hawk flying overhead and so save itself: his eyes are like doves beside brooks of water (Song 5:12). And so, because our refuge and defense is found in baptism, the Holy Spirit appropriately appeared in the form of a dove.

The dove also corresponds to a figure in the Old Testament. For as the dove bearing the green olive branch was a sign of God’s mercy to those who survived the waters of the deluge, so too in baptism, the Holy Spirit, coming in the form of a dove, is a sign of the divine mercy which takes away the sins of those baptized and confers grace.

273. He says that the Holy Spirit was remaining upon him.

If the Holy Spirit does not rest on someone, it is due to two causes. One is sin. For all men except Christ are either suffering from the wound of mortal sin, which banishes the Holy Spirit, or are darkened with the stain of venial sin, which hinders some of the works of the Holy Spirit. But in Christ there was neither mortal nor venial sin; so, the Holy Spirit in him was never disquieted, but was remaining upon him.

The other reason concerns charismatic graces, for the other saints do not always possess their power. For example, the power to work miracles is not always present in the saints, nor is the spirit of prophecy always in the prophets. But Christ always possessed the power to accomplish any work of the virtues and the graces. So to indicate this, he says, remaining upon him.

Hence this was the characteristic sign for recognizing Christ, as the Gloss says. The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him (Isa 11:2), which we should understand of Christ as man, according to which he is less than the Father and the Holy Spirit.

274. Then when he says, I did not know him, he teaches us how this vision should be understood.

For certain heretics, as the Ebionites, said that Christ was neither the Christ nor the Son of God from the time he was born, but only began to be the Son of God and the Christ when he was anointed with the oil of the Holy Spirit at his baptism. But this is false, because at the very hour of his birth the angel said to the shepherds: this day a savior has been born for you in the city of David, Christ the Lord (Luke 2:11). Therefore, so that we do not believe that the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ in his baptism as though Christ needed to receive the Spirit anew for his sanctification, the Baptist gives the reason for the Spirit’s coming down. He says that the Spirit descended not for the benefit of Christ, but for our benefit, that is, so that the grace of Christ might be made known to us. And so he says, and I did not know him, but that he may be made manifest in Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.

275. There is a problem here. For he says, he who sent me to baptize. If he is saying that the Father sent him, it is true. Also, if he is saying that the Son sent him, it is even more clear, since it is said that both the Father and the Son sent him, because John is not one of those referred to at I did not send the prophets, yet they ran (Jer 23:21). But if the Son did send him, how can he then say, I did not know him?

If it is said that although he knew Christ according to his divinity, yet he did not know him according to his humanity until after he saw the Spirit coming down upon him, one might counter that the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ when he was being baptized, and John had already known Christ before he was baptized, otherwise he would not have said: I ought to be baptized by you, and you come to me? (Matt 3:14).

So we must say that this problem can be resolved in three ways. In one way, according to Chrysostom, so that the meaning is to know familiarly; the sense being that I did not know him, i.e., in a familiar way. And if the objection is raised that John says, I ought to be baptized by you (Matt 3:14), it can be answered that two different times are being discussed: so that I did not know him, refers to a time long before baptism, when he was not yet familiar with Christ: but when he says, I ought to be baptized by you, he is referring to the time when Christ was being baptized, when he was now familiar with Christ because of his frequent visits. In another way, according to Jerome, it could be said that Christ was the Son of God and the savior of the world, and that John did in fact know this; but it was not through the baptism that he knew that he was the savior of the world. And so to remedy this ignorance he adds, it is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. But it is better to say with Augustine that John knew certain things and was ignorant of others. Explaining what he did not know, he adds that the power of baptizing, which Christ could have shared with his faithful followers, would be reserved for himself alone. And this is what he says, he who sent me to baptize with water . . . it is he, exclusively and solely, who baptizes with the Holy Spirit, i.e., he and no one else, because this power he reserved for himself alone.

276. We should note that a threefold power of Christ is found in baptism. One is the power of efficiency, by which he interiorly cleanses the soul from the stain of sin. Christ has this power as God, but not as man, and it cannot be communicated to any other.

Another is the power of ministry, which he does share with the faithful: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). Therefore priests have the power to baptize as ministers. Christ too, as man, is called a minister, as the Apostle says. But he is also the head of all the ministers of the Church.

Because of this he alone has the power of excellence in the sacraments. And this excellence shows itself in four things. First, in the institution of the sacraments, because no mere man or even the entire Church could institute sacraments, or change the sacraments, or dispense with the sacraments. For by their institution the sacraments give invisible grace, which only God can give. Therefore, only one who is true God can institute sacraments. The second lies in the efficacy of Christ’s merits, for the sacraments have their power from the merit of Christ’s passion: all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus, have been baptized into his death (Rom 6:3). The third is that Christ can confer the effect of baptism without the sacrament; and this is peculiar to Christ. Fourth, because at one time baptism was conferred in the name of Christ, although this is no longer done. Now he did not communicate these four things to anyone; although he could have communicated some of them, for example, that baptism be conferred in the name of Peter or of someone else, and perhaps one of the remaining three. But this was not done lest schisms arise in the Church by men putting their trust in those in whose name they were baptized.

And so John, in stating that the Holy Spirit came down upon Christ, teaches that it is Christ alone who baptizes interiorly by his own power.

277. One might also say that when John said, I ought to be baptized by you (Matt 3:14), he recognized Christ through an interior revelation, but that when he saw the Holy Spirit coming down upon him, he knew him through an exterior sign. And so he mentions both of these ways of knowing. The first when he says, he who sent me to baptize with water, said to me, i.e., revealed something in an interior way. The second when he adds, he upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending . . . it is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.

278. Then he shows what the Baptist understood from this vision, that is, that Christ is the Son of God. And this is what he says, And I have seen the Spirit coming down on him, and I have given testimony that this, that is, Christ, is the Son of God, that is, the true and natural Son.

For there were adopted sons of the Father who had a likeness to the natural Son of God: conformed to the image of his Son (Rom 8:29). So he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit, through whom we are adopted as sons, ought to fashion sons of God. You did not receive the spirit of slavery ... but the spirit of adoption (Rom 8:15). Therefore, because Christ is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit, the Baptist correctly concludes that he is the true and pure Son of God: that we may be in his true Son (1 John 5:20).

279. But if there were others who saw the Holy Spirit coming down upon Christ, why did they not also believe?

I answer that they had not been so disposed for this. Or perhaps, this vision was seen only by the Baptist.