side of the contrast. The anthrōpos confirms this. As distinct from egeneto, John never uses it for the Logos, or later in the Gospel for Jesus (or only incidentally in 8:40). As a man the one referred to here is one of those for whom the life contained in the Logos was and is light (v. 4), light that shines in the darkness (v. 5). If the egeneto and the anthrōpos definitely distinguish him from the Logos, the predicate apestalmenos para theou brings him close, and even in a sense puts him in the same sphere and gives him the same function. For the same verb (along with pempein elsewhere) describes Jesus also as “sent by God” in 5:36, 38; 7:29; 20:21. In the Mandean literature, too, the Revealer himself is “sent” by the higher deity. But it is more relevant here to think of the Old Testament concept of a “sending” of prophets, servants, and angels—the angel of God in Mal. 3:1, 23 [Eng. 4:5]. This last passage played a considerable role in the Christian assessment of John the Baptist. Within the world that has come into being, within the human world that has fallen under darkness, not as an exception to the determinations that are posed for all and every creature, there is among the determinations this qualification: sending by God, separation for a task or mission, and in this sense prophecy. “A man, i.e., one who was not previously anything but an ordinary man, was afterward sent by God,” is the correct paraphrase of Schleiermacher.57 And Calvin makes the essential distinction: “Angeli magis quam hominis personam sustinet. Non suarum virtutum elogiis ornatur, sed hoc uno, quod Dei legatus fuerit.”58
Already in the Introduction we have discussed the onoma antō̧ lōannēs (3:1 introduces Nicodemus in the same way), the semi-obscurity which in part surrounds this name, and the general nature of the problem that this ambivalence raises. If we take vv. 9ff. into account, if we are right to view vv. 6ff. not as an abruptly interposed fragment but as an introduction to vv. 9ff., then we cannot fail to see that in spite of the concretely historical character of vv. 6ff. the author is unwilling to go on directly to an account of the mission of the Baptist. Even in vv. 14ff., where the Baptist appears again in a new context, and even speaks, this will not happen. It does so only in vv. 19ff. with the true beginning of the Gospel. Are we wrong to think that with a view to vv. 9ff. the Baptist does not represent himself in vv. 6ff. but represents all that comes under the concept of phōs erchomenon eis ton kosmon, of light as dawn, advent, approaching Christmas, or, more concretely, of prophet, of anthrōpos apestalmenos para theou? As apestalmenos para theou the prophet, without being the Logos, assumes the function of the Revealer and to that extent shares his significance and worth. This is a servant’s share, a subordinate share—on this see v. 8!—but it is still a share. Inasmuch as he is apestalmenos para theou his gegonenai, his humanity, his belonging to the created world, and even to the dominion of skotia, does not in the slightest prevent him from being seen (as in vv. 9ff.) from the standpoint of the light of revelation that comes into the world from the very first. With reference to him it can be said of the light of redemption, of life, that it was in the world (v. 10) even apart from the epiphany of the Word itself. If it was the Evangelist’s concern, even before he began to speak as an Evangelist, to consider and state in principle what he and his fellows were doing in this function relative to its subject, he could hardly do it in a more appropriate way than by the presentation that he initiates in v. 6.
7. Houtos ēlthen eis martyrian, hina martyrēsȩ̄ peri tou phōtos, hina pantes pisteusōsin di’ autou. I have already said in the Introduction that this verse should prevent us from viewing the assessment of the Baptist in the prologue one-sidedly from the standpoint of its probable ecclesiastico-political significance and hence interpreting it in a one-sided negative way. In this verse, as H. Holtzmann59 better perceived than W. Bauer after him,60 every word but one is positive. And this verse is present and throws light on the whole statement, as v. 8 will in its own fashion later.
Ēlthen is here undoubtedly the same solemn erchesthai with which Elijah came according to the Synoptics, the same as that with which the kingdom of God has come near, the same as that with which the Son of Man will come at the end of the days, the same as that which serves both in the Synoptics and in this Gospel to denote the first epiphany of the Lord. “Coming” is also a technical term for the appearing of the Revealer in Mandean works. If the appearance of the Baptist as a total phenomenon (this is the point in v. 7 as distinct from vv. 19ff.) is described by this solemn erchesthai, this embraces its coordination with the office of the Revealer himself. The same is true of the terms martyria and martyrein, which, as we have said in the Introduction, denote also the work of the disciples of Jesus and at times that of Jesus himself. Finally, note how directly the aim of the mission of John is described by the point that all are to believe through him. The above-mentioned exception, the limitation of the positive character of the statement about John, lies in the self-evident pisteusōsin di’ autou. This at once sets the Baptist alongside the Samaritan woman, of whom it is said in 4:41f. that many come to believe through her word, whereas the Gospel never says that anyone believes “through” Jesus but always that people believe or do not believe eis auton or autō̧. Consider what this means. One may believe, i.e., come to faith, through John, but the Revealer himself is the object of faith. We have seen the solemn mediatorial significance of the expression di’ autou in v. 3. What breadth and depth it gives to John’s summons to repentance and baptism of repentance—his function according to the Synoptics. It rules out any limitation of his significance as purely Old Testament or perhaps legal (v. 17). The pantes shows that his work is both extensive and universal, as that of the Samaritan woman in ch. 4 could never be, and as only that of Christ, and on a lower level that of his disciples as his designated witnesses, can also be. All who come to faith are to do so through John. That is how we are to construe the pantes, and later the phōtizei panta anthrōpon of v. 9. All this is indeed positive enough.
Irrespective of the caveat in v. 8, it is important for the author to say that there is not only the absolute but also a qualified relative, not only revelation but also, deriving from it, relating to it, serving it, applying to all to whom revelation applies, the witness to it, the indication of it, the word from the lips of a man, but from a man who is “sent by God.” What martyria and martyrein are may best be seen if we take as literally as possible the peri and genitive with which John’s Gospel often denotes the object of witness. Witness is truly and in the best sense speaking about a subject, describing it exactly and fully, pointing to it, confirming and repeating it, and all in such a way that the subject remains itself and can speak for itself, that it is not in any way absorbed in human speech or shouted down and overpowered by it. Only where we have supreme concern both to be as close to the subject as possible, and yet to keep at a distance so that it may speak for itself, do we have martyria. And di’ autou, by a human mediator of the divine Mediator, by this human witness that is still qualified as a medium, di’ anthrōpou apestalmenou para theou, there comes about, not revelation, for this needs no witness in order to take place, but faith in it. “Testis hic nostra, non Christi causa est ordinatus.”61 But he is ordained for our sake. As we come to faith, we cannot bypass or leap over the witness, the prophet, the apostle. The figure of John is not there for nothing. It is not there for its own sake at the beginning of all the Gospels. In John’s Gospel especially the first disciples come to Jesus as they follow the pointing finger of John. “John” in the broadest sense, understood in such a way that the prophets before him and the apostles after him are also “John,” as he stands in highly significant ambivalence between them—this John, because he is a relative entity, is not on that account an indifferent or dispensable entity. “L’idée du témoignage […] est corrélative et inseparable de celle de la foi” (F. Godet).62 From the other side, we may also say with Schlatter: “He who is a witness has a right to be believed. He speaks as one who knows about something that others do not know and cannot know for themselves. He tells them so that they may achieve certainty through his knowledge. If in reply to the word of witness faith grasps it and accepts it, then the light shines into us. By whether we come to faith or not it
