John 1:6

[See also the "General Considerations on the Prologue" in the comments of John 1:18.]

Ver. 6. “ There appeared a man sent from God; his name was John. ”

The forerunner is not mentioned here as representing, either the whole of the Jewish economy, or prophetism in particular, as is thought by the interpreters who endeavor to find an historical plan in the Prologue. The apostle speaks of the forerunner only with respect to his personality and from the point of view of his relation to that of the Saviour.

The mention of the forerunner in this place with such particularity is, as Weiss observes, characteristic of the Apostle John, to whom the Baptist had served as a guide to conduct him to Christ.

The word ἐγένετο, became, appeared, points to an historical fact, and might thus form a contrast with the verbs ἠν, was, which in John 1:1 designated the eternal existence of the Word; but between them the two ἠν of John 1:4 have intervened. The word ἅνθρωπος, a man, might also be the antithesis to the divine subject who has alone been brought forward up to this point; yet there is nothing which indicates this with sufficient positiveness.

The analytic form ἐγένετο ἀπεσταλμένος sets forth the importance of the person of John in a better way than the simple ἀπεστάλη, which would have reference only to his mission. He was the first prophetic person raised up by God since a time long past. On the word sent, comp. John 3:28: “Because I am sent before him,” as well as Malachi 3:1, from which passage this expression is certainly drawn. The name John (God shows grace) marked the character of the era which was about to open. Yet it is not for this reason that the evangelist mentions the name here. He means simply to say: “This man, of whom I speak to you, is the one who is known by you all under the name of John.” It is remarkable that our evangelist uses simply the name John, without adding the epithet Baptist, which had early become inseparable from this name, as we see from the Synoptics, and even from the Jewish historian, Josephus. Does not Meyer reasonably conclude from this omission (Introd. p. 31), that the author of our Gospel must have known the forerunner otherwise than through the general tradition of the Church? If he had really known him before the public voice had given him this title, it was very natural that he should designate him simply by his name. Credner thought that, inasmuch as the title Baptist served in the Church to distinguish the forerunner from another person of the same name (John the apostle), the latter omitted the title in order that he might not attract attention to himself by the contrast; an ingenious observation, but, perhaps, less well- founded than the preceding. After having introduced this personage, the author describes his role: