‘When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptising more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptise, but his disciples) he left Judea and departed again into Galilee.'
‘When therefore the Lord knew --'. The use of ‘the Lord' by John when speaking of Jesus is elsewhere limited to after the resurrection except for John 6:23 and a comment in John 11:2. Many ancient manuscripts have ‘Jesus' here, but on balance there is considerably stronger, more widespread and earlier evidence for ‘the Lord', and in view of the other references there would seem good grounds for accepting it here as the ‘harder' reading.
In view of what we have just read about the exalted Son it seems quite feasible that the writer is wishing to stress the huge contrast between Jesus and John by using of Jesus the title ‘kurios' which Paul certainly equates with the name above every name, the great name of God, ‘YHWH' (Philippians 2:9-11). The writer wants us to know just Who it was Who was doing this.
Thus the writer is stressing the greatness of the One to whom he is referring. He stresses that it was none other than ‘the LORD' Who heard and responded as He did.
‘That the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptising more disciples than John.' The reference to ‘more disciples' demonstrates that the term ‘disciples' is used here of all those coming for baptism. The term is sometimes very general in the Gospel, varying with the context.
‘The Pharisees had heard.' Clearly some Pharisee, possibly hoping to gain favour, had told Jesus that it was common knowledge among them, as a result of reports from their agents, that He was gathering more ‘disciples' than John. It is probable that they had considered it their duty to weigh the two men up. As ‘guardians of the faith' they would see it as their responsibility to assess them. Whatever their reason was, the imprisonment of John and disappearance of Jesus to Galilee interrupted their inspection, although, as we discover elsewhere, the assessment of Jesus went on in Galilee (e.g. Mark 2:6; Mark 2:16; Mark 2:22).
So in His greatness ‘the Lord', who had every right to exert His superiority had He wished, when He learned that a certain amount of ignominy was being cast on John the Baptiser, withdrew into Galilee. And it was not in order to change His sphere of ministry, but simply to prevent His activity from interfering with John's, for in Galilee He did not begin a public ministry until after John was imprisoned. Such was His sensitivity that He wished to protect His servant John from embarrassment.
What a lesson lies here for all who compete to make a name for themselves at the expense of others, and think that they are so important that they can ignore the effect of their ministry on other works of God. Each should be concerned that other's work may prosper. And we should note that had Jesus not done what He did the great revival in Samaria, which we will next consider, would not have occurred.
‘Although Jesus himself did not baptise, but his disciples.' It may be asked, why did Jesus not baptise? The answer is twofold. Firstly, He was no doubt conscious of the great danger that might arise in the future when men could claim that they But there is an even more important reason why it would have been the wrong thing to do for Jesus to baptise. Baptism at this stage was a pointer forward to the coming of the Holy Spirit. It was a declaration that One was coming Who would ‘drench (baptise) in Holy Spirit' (Mark 1:8 ). John baptised with water in order to proclaim that that day was coming and he was especially thrilled when he saw it actually fulfilled when He had baptised Jesus. He immediately knew that this was the One Who would ‘baptise' in Holy Spirit, although he did not know when. It was equally right for Jesus' disciples to baptise. They too proclaimed that the pouring out of the Holy Spirit was coming, and that One would come Who would baptise in Holy Spirit. It pointed from them to Another. But He was not ready to reveal Himself until John's ministry was complete.
So Jesus could not point to another, for He was, and is, the baptiser in the Holy Spirit. He is the reality of which the baptism was the shadow. Thus for Him to have baptised would have been constantly misleading. He would have been pointing them to His own future coming. He would have been denying that He was present as the baptiser in Holy Spirit. And that He could not do, for it was the reason why He had come, the reason revealed to Nicodemus, shortly to be revealed to the Samaritan woman, and more and more to be revealed through His ministry until He gave the Holy Spirit, first in the Upper Room to the apostles (John 20 ), and then to the world at Pentecost (Acts 2 ).
The Samaritan Woman And The High Official's Son (chapter 4).
In these two incidents we have a direct contrast with Nicodemus (John 3:1-7) and an indication that the old ritual water was being done away because the new wine had come (John 2:1-12). Once again we discover that the writer was familiar with the topography of Palestine (this time of Samaria) and gives almost incidental touches that reveal him or his sources as an eyewitness.