John 3:23Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

If he had also ceased baptizing, he would have stirred up their rivalry all the more. Therefore Christ also began especially to preach when John had been killed.

I think John's death was permitted, and came so quickly, so that the attention of all the people might be turned toward Christ. Then opinions would no longer be divided between the two.

Yet even while baptizing, John did not cease exhorting and showing the great and exalted dignity of Jesus. He baptized for no other reason than this: "that they should believe in Him who was to come after him" (Acts 19:4).

Since he preached this, how would he have shown the dignity of Christ's disciples if he had stopped baptizing? People would have thought he did this out of envy or vexation.

By continuing to preach, however, he proved their honor still more strongly. He did not acquire glory for himself, but sent his hearers to Christ.

He helped Him no less than His disciples did, and even more. His testimony was above suspicion, and he had greater glory among all than they did.

The Evangelist indicated this when he said, "Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan went out to him" (Mt 3:5). Even when the disciples were baptizing, the people did not cease coming to him.

This was so that the whole devotion of the people might pass to Christ, and not be divided in thought between the two, John and Christ.

Christ's disciples baptize with a baptism that has nothing greater than John's baptism. Both are imperfect, since they do not partake of the Spirit, though the aim of both is one: to lead the baptized to Christ.

With shameless insolence, they would set the baptism with water above it. To what audacity do they not come? What blasphemy do they not invent, who rise against the sacred dogmas of the Church?

They "pervert all that is right," as it is written (Mic 3:9). To forestall their presumptuous grounds, the wise Evangelist brings before us the holy Baptist himself, offering his disciples the answer to the question.

Christ, then, baptizes through His disciples, and John does the same. Yet John does not baptize through others, nor in the same springs where Christ did this.

Rather, as it is written, he baptized near Salim, in one of the neighboring and adjacent springs. By this distinction of water sources, I think, the Evangelist sets forth the distinction in baptism.

As though through a riddle, he indicates that the baptism through John is not one and the same as the baptism from our Savior Christ. Yet it is close to it, as a certain anticipation and preparation for the more perfect Baptism.

As the Law of Moses, it is said, "has a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things" (Heb 10:1), so also must we understand the baptism unto repentance.

For the Mosaic writing contains within itself the hidden seed of truth. It is a prefigurement and foreannouncement of service in the Spirit.

That catechumen might say in his heart, "What profit is it to me to receive Baptism, so that I may possess what is also possessed by one whom I am already better than now?"

Therefore, lest this neck, raised up in some by the merits of their own righteousness, should destroy them, the Lord willed to be baptized by a servant.

It was as though He said to His proud sons, "Why do you exalt yourselves? Why do you lift yourselves up because of what you have? One has understanding, another learning, another chastity, and another boundless patience.

Can you have as much as I have, who gave these things? And yet I received baptism from a servant, while you disdain to receive it from the Lord!" That is: "Let all righteousness be fulfilled" (cf. Mt 3:15).

But someone will say, "Then it was enough for John to baptize the Lord. Why was it necessary for others also to be baptized by John?"

We have already spoken of this too. If the Lord alone had been baptized by John, many people would have supposed that John's baptism was better than the Lord's.

They would have said, "How great was the baptism John had, since Christ alone was counted worthy to be baptized with it."

Therefore, so that it might be clear that the Baptism the Lord was about to give was better than John's baptism, the Lord Himself was baptized.

The one could be understood as baptism from a servant, and the other as Baptism from the Lord. By being baptized, He gave an example of humility.

Yet He was not the only one baptized by him, lest John's baptism should seem better than the Lord's Baptism.

For this purpose, as you have heard, brethren, our Lord Jesus prepared the way. No one should refuse to be baptized by the Lord because he ascribes to himself some abundance of goodness.

For however much a catechumen may advance, he still bears the burden of his unrighteousness. It will not be remitted to him until he comes to Baptism.

As the people of Israel were not delivered from the Egyptian people until they came to the Red Sea, so no one is delivered from the weight of sins until he comes to the font of Baptism.

Under the pretext of defending their teacher, they might have raged still more fiercely against Jesus Christ and the apostles. Jesus Christ Himself knew this.

Therefore He began to preach more openly only when John had been taken from among the people. Chrysostom says: I think his very swift death was permitted so that all the people's devotion might be transferred to Jesus Christ.

It was also so that later they would not be divided in their opinions about the two. If anyone asks what advantage the disciples' baptism had over John's baptism, we shall say: none.

Both alike lacked the grace of the Holy Spirit. Both had one aim: to lead the baptized to Christ.

Therefore He resolved to spend a considerable time there with His disciples. He Himself was occupied with teaching, while His disciples baptized those who believed in Him.

His work was successful. His community soon became far more numerous than John's. Meanwhile, John's community also was being prepared for Him.

The hostile spirit, fearing their united action, sought to create a division between them. Yet the power of God overcame this cunning of the evil one.

They received the name of John's disciples. But the Baptist had not succeeded in developing their understanding to grasp this truth: his teaching was, for them in the strict sense, a preliminary and preparatory school.

Since they looked upon their teacher with boundless reverence, they considered it a certain injury to his honor when they saw the people increasingly hastening for instruction to Jesus, to whom John had borne witness.

They openly expressed this before their teacher.

Both Aenon and Salim are places not precisely determined. On the basis of the testimony of ancient ecclesiastical writers, they must have been in Samaria.

In that case, the activity of Jesus Christ at this time was near the Jordan, within the territory of the tribe of Judah.

But in Josh 15:32, cities are named in the tribe of Judah in southern Palestine: Shelihim or Selhim and Ain. These plainly sound like Salim and Aenon.

If these are the same cities, then the activity of Jesus Christ at this time was in southern Palestine.

According to Eusebius and Jerome, Aenon was near Beth-shean, or Scythopolis, and Salim a little to the west. Both were in the Jordan valley and in the region of Samaria.

But this opinion cannot be accepted, because John, as a strict Jew, could not have transferred his activity to the defiled territory of the Samaritans.

More recent investigators seem more successfully to indicate another place. In the book of Joshua (15:32; cf. 15:21), three small cities are mentioned.

They lay on the southern border of the tribe of Judah, strictly within the tribe of Simeon, toward Edom. It should be noted that the tribe of Simeon lay within the territory of Judah; see Josh 19:2.

These cities are Silgim, Ain, and Rimmon. In the LXX, Silgim is read Σαλεειμ, that is, Salim. Ain in the LXX is read Αιν, that is, En.

In Josh 19:7 and 1 Chr 4:32, Ain and Rimmon are again placed side by side. Finally, in Neh 11:29, the names of these two cities merge into one, En-rimmon.

In verse 30, moreover, the valley of Ennon is also mentioned. One may think that the valley and city of Ain received their name from a spring.

This spring was so significant that, to distinguish it from others in the same locality, it needed no definite name. It was simply called "the spring," ain.

In this spring, as one abundant in water, John baptized those who came to him. This opinion is insistently defended by Ewald, Godet, and especially Wieseler in Chronol. Synops., pp. 247-248.

Among Russian writers, Bishop Michael also holds it. See also "The Holy Land" in Orthodox Review, May 1907, p. 645.

On this supposition, one difficulty is removed: John's baptizing in Samaria, hostile to the Jews. At the same time, the words "because there was much water there" receive their proper meaning.

Indeed, the mention of a spring abundant in water has greater significance in a generally waterless and almost desert country, such as the southern border of Judea.

It would have less significance in water-rich Samaria, if Samaria were in question.

If they are accepted, then one must suppose that the Baptist, with his preaching, crossed the boundaries of Judea and acted in Samaria. According to these indications, the cities mentioned were in that region.

There is, of course, nothing improbable in the Forerunner of the Messiah, while preparing the people to receive Him, also entering the borders of Samaria.

But the expression "because there was much water there" does not seem to suit the places just mentioned. This expression points to a generally waterless region, where water was abundant only at one or a few points, from springs.

This cannot be said of those places, where the Jordan was nearby and where, in general, there was no lack of water. At least, this is nowhere evident.

Moreover, the expression points to a great gathering of people around John. Is such a gathering likely in Samaria, when the other Gospel passages do not directly show that Samaritans came to John (Mt 3:5; Mk 1:5)?

It is hardly convenient to suppose that the people came to John in Samaria from Judea and the neighboring regions. The hatred of the Jews for the Samaritans, and of the latter for the former, is well known.

In any case, identifying the place of the Baptist's present activity with the locations just mentioned remains doubtful. It seems more natural to incline to the view that the places where John baptized were on the southern border of Judea.

In the book of Joshua, three cities are named on the southern border of Judea with Idumea: Silgim, Ain, and Rimmon (Josh 15:32; cf. Jn 3:21).

The last two places are joined in the book of Nehemiah under one name, En-rimmon (Neh 11:29). Might Aenon be a shortened form of En-rimmon, and Silgim be Salim?

In that case the expression "there was much water there" is entirely appropriate. It would apply to a place abundant in water amid a waterless and almost wild wilderness bordering Idumea.

At least, it is more fitting than if applied to localities not far from the Jordan and abundant in water. Then the gathering of Jews to John is also more understandable.

It explains why he chose a water-rich place amid the wilderness. The following narrative about the dispute of the Jews with John's disciples also becomes more intelligible.

Finally, the words of John's disciples about Jesus become clearer: "He who was with you beyond the Jordan" (Jn 3:26). They could have used this expression only if they were not near the Jordan.

Still, let each decide this according to his own judgment. One or another determination of the place where John was acting at the time is not essential to the reliability and truth of the events narrated.

This fulfilled the words of the risen Savior: "Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28:19).

At the same time as Christ's disciples, John the Baptist also continued to baptize. More people were going to Christ. This is how it had to be.

But John's devoted disciples were grieved that the people's attention to their teacher was weakening. The Pharisees made use of this touching attachment to John, which reached the point of extreme blindness.

They stirred up envy and ill will in them toward Jesus Christ and His disciples. Equally malicious toward Christ and toward His Forerunner, the Pharisees wished to sow discord between the disciples of both.

In this way they hoped to reduce their influence over the people to nothing. Stirred up by the Pharisees, the disciples of John the Baptist came to him with their complaint.

"Rabbi! He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have borne witness, behold, He is baptizing, and all are going to Him" (v. 26).

Most authorities, including Archpriest Sokolov in his Sacred History and in the map attached to it, apparently on the basis of Eusebius and the reports of the Palestine Exploration Fund, place Salim on the western bank of the Jordan.

They place it on the border of Samaria and Galilee. Aenon lies south of Salim, and in all probability, according to Westcott in the Speaker's Bible and Grove in Smith's Bible Dictionary, it is the Chaldean, that is, Aramaic, word ain.

This means "spring," or in the plural "springs," ainan, and the word was transcribed in Greek letters as αἱνόν.

There is another opinion, that Aenon was near Nablus, or Shechem, in Samaria. We mention it only to state that we do not share it.

This is especially so because St Jerome also indicates in the Onomasticon that Aenon lay eight Roman miles south of Scythopolis, "near Salim and the Jordan," juxta Salem et Iordanem.

Scythopolis was ancient Beth-shean (Josh 17:11; 2 Sam 21:12; cf. 1 Macc 5:62; 12), whose name was replaced by Scythopolis in 2 Macc 12:29. It is now again called Beisan, with a slight alteration of the ancient name.