A question then arose. Not without a good reason does the Evangelist relate that a question arose from the disciples of John; for just in proportion as they were ill-informed about doctrine, they are so much the more eager to enter into debate, as ignorance is always bold and presumptuous. If others had attacked them, they might have been excused; but when they themselves, though unfit to maintain the contest, voluntarily provoke the Jews, it is a rash and foolish proceeding. Now the words mean, that "the question was raised by them;" and not only were they to blame for taking up a matter which they did not understand, and speaking about it rashly and beyond the measure of their knowledge; but another fault -- not less than the former -- was, that they did not so much intend to maintain the lawfulness of Baptism as to defend the cause of their master, that his authority might remain unimpaired. In both respects, they deserved reproof, because, not understanding what was the real nature of Baptism, they expose the holy ordinance of God to ridicule, and because, by sinful ambition, they undertake to defend the cause of their master against Christ. It is evident, therefore, that they were astonished and confounded by a single word, when it was represented to them that Christ also was baptizing; for while their attention was directed to the person of a man, and to outward appearance, [1] they gave themselves less concern about the doctrine. We are taught, by their example, into what mistakes those men fall who are actuated by a sinful desire to please men rather than by a zeal for God; and we are likewise reminded that the single object which we ought to have in view and to promote by all means is, that Christ alone may have the pre-eminence. About purifying The question was about purifying; for the Jews had various baptisms and washings [2] enjoined by the Law; and not satisfied with those which God had appointed, [3] they carefully observed many others which had been handed down from their ancestors. When they find that, in addition to so great a number and variety of purifyings, a new method of purifying is introduced by Christ and by John, they look upon it as absurd.

Footnotes

1 - "Et apparence exterieure."

2 - "De baptesmes et lavemens."

3 - "Que Dieu avoit instituez."

A question - Rather a controversy a dispute.
John's disciples - Those who had been baptized by him, and who attached great efficacy and importance to the teaching of their master. Compare the notes at Acts 19:1-5.
And the Jews - Many manuscripts, some of the fathers, and the ancient Syriac version read this in the singular number "with A Jew," one who, it is commonly supposed, had been baptized by the disciples of Jesus.
About purifying - What the precise subject of this dispute was we do not know. From what follows, it would seem probable that it was about the comparative value and efficacy of the baptism performed by John and by the disciples of Jesus. The word "purifying" may be applied to baptism, as it was an emblem of repentance and purity, and was thus used by the Jews, by John, and by Jesus. About this subject it seems that a dispute arose, and was carried to such a length that complaint was made to John. From this we may learn:
1. that even in the time of Jesus, when the gospel began to be preached, there was witnessed what has been ever since - unhappy disputings on the subject of religion. Even young converts may, By overheated zeal and ignorance, fall into angry discussion.
2. that such discussions are commonly about some unimportant matter of religion - something which they may not yet be qualified to understand, and which does not materially affect them if they could.
3. that such disputes are often connected with a spirit of proselytism - with boasting of the superior excellence of the sect with which "we" are connected, or in connection with whom we have been converted, and often with a desire to persuade others to join with us.
4. that such a spirit is eminently improper on such occasions. Love should characterize the feelings of young converts; a disposition to inquire and not to dispute; a willingness that all should follow the dictates of their own consciences, and not a desire to proselyte them to our way of thinking or to our church. It may be added that there is scarcely anything which so certainly and effectually arrests a revival of religion as such a disposition to dispute, and to make proselytes to particular modes of faith, and of administering the ordinances of the gospel.

John's disciples and the Jews - Instead of Ιουδαιων, Jews, ABELS. M. BV, nearly 100 others, some versions and fathers, read Ιουδαιου, a Jew, which Griesbach has admitted into the text. The person here spoken of was probably one who had been baptized by the disciples of our Lord; and the subject of debate seems to have been, whether the baptism of John, or that of Christ, was the most efficacious towards purifying.

(8) Then there arose a question between [some] of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying.
(8) Satan inflames the disciples of John with a fond emulation of their master in order to hinder the course of the gospel: but John, being mindful of his office, not only puts a stop to their endeavours, but also takes occasion by that means to give testimony of Christ, that in him alone the Father has set forth everlasting life.

Then there arose a question,.... A dispute, or controversy, occasioned by the baptism, of John and Christ:
between some of John's disciples, and the Jews. The Syriac and Persic versions read, "between one of John's disciples, and a certain Jew"; and Nonnus renders it, "with an Hebrew man"; and so the Alexandrian manuscript; many others read, "with a Jew": the contention between them was
about purifying; either about the ceremonial purifications, and ablutions commanded in the law of Moses; or concerning the various washings of persons, and vessels, according to the traditions of the elders, which the Jews in common were very tenacious of; and which they thought were brought into neglect, and contempt, by the baptism of John: and this seems to have been occasioned by the baptism of Christ; which the Jew might improve against the disciple of John, and urge, that since another, besides his master, had set up baptizing, who could tell which was most right and safest to follow? and therefore it would have been much better, if no such rite at all had been used by any, but that the purifications required by the law of Moses, and by their elders, had been strictly and solely attended to.

between some of--rather, "on the part of."
and the Jews--rather (according to the best manuscripts), "and a Jew,"
about purifying--that is, baptizing, the symbolical meaning of washing with water being put (as in John 2:6) for the act itself. As John and Jesus were the only teachers who baptized Jews, discussions might easily arise between the Baptist's disciples and such Jews as declined to submit to that rite.

There arose a question . . . about purifying. The Revision says "a Jew," probably a Pharisee who associated baptism with ceremonial purification. From the fact that John's disciples mention Jesus, it is evident that his name came up in the discussion.

The Jews - Those men of Judea, who now went to be baptized by Jesus; and John's disciples, who were mostly of Galilee: about purifying - That is, baptism. They disputed, which they should be baptized by.