John 1:19-28

The witness of John to the deputation from Jerusalem, entitled αὕτη ἐστὶν … Λευείτας. The witness or testimony of John is placed first, not only because it was that which influenced the evangelist himself, nor only because chronologically it came first, but because the Baptist was commissioned to be the herald of the Messiah. The Baptist's testimony was of supreme value because of (1) his appointment to this function of identifying the Messiah, (2) his knowledge of Jesus, (3) his own holiness, (4) his disinterestedness. αὕτη, this which follows, is the testimony given on a special occasion ὅτε ἀπέστειλαν … Λευείτας, “when the Jews sent to him from Jerusalem priests and Levites”. Ἰουδαῖοι [יִהוּרִים], originally designating the tribes of Judah and Benjamin which formed the separate kingdom of Judah, but after the exile denoting all Israelites. In this Gospel it is used with a hostile implication as the designation of the “entire theocratic community as summed up in its official heads and as historically fixed in an attitude of hostility to Christ” (Whitelaw). Here “the Jews” probably indicates the Sanhedrim, composed of priests, presbyters, and scribes. ἱερεῖς καὶ Λευείτας, the higher and lower order of temple officials (Holtzmann). Why were not scribes sent? Possibly because John's father was himself a priest. The priests were for the most part Sadducees, but John tells us this deputation was strong in Pharisees (John 1:24). Lampe says: “Custodibus Templi incumbebat, Dominum Templi, cujus adventum exspectabant, nosse”. They were sent ἵνα ἐρωτήσωσιν αὐτόν, “that they might interrogate him,” not captiously but for the sake of information. Lk. tells us (John 3:15) that the people were on the tiptoe of expectation, and were discussing whether John were not the Christ; so it was time the Sanhedrim should make the inquiry. “The judgment of the case of a false prophet is specially named in the Mishna as belonging to the council of the Seventy One” (Watkins). “This incident gives a deep insight into the extraordinary religious life of the Jews their unusual combination of conservatism with progressive thought” (Reynolds' John the Baptist, p. 365). Σὺ τίς εἶ, “Who art thou?” Not, what is your name, or birth, but, what personage do you claim to be, what place in the community do you aspire to? with an implied reference to a possible claim on John's part to be the Christ. This appears from John's answer, ὡμολόγησεν καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσατο καὶ ὡμολόγησεν. Schoettgen says the form of the sentence is “judaico more,” citing “Jethro confessus, et non mentitus est”. Cf. Romans 9:1 and 1 Timothy 2:7. The iteration serves here to bring out the earnestness, almost horror, with which John disclaimed the ascription to him of such an honour. His high conception of the office emphasises his acknowledgment of Jesus. ὅτι, here, as commonly, “recitative,” serving the purpose of our inverted commas or marks of quotation. ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ὁ Χριστός, the reading adopted by Tisch [28] and W.H [29], bringing the emphasis on the “I”. “ I am not the Christ,” but another is. The T.R. οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ὁ χριστός, by bringing the ἐγὼ and ὁ Χριστός together, accentuates the incongruity and the Baptist's surprise at being mistaken for the Christ. This straightforward denial evokes another question (John 1:21), τί οὖν; which Weiss renders, “What then art thou?” Better “what then?” “what then is the case?” quid ergo, quid igitur? Ἡλείας εἶ σύ; If not the Christ Himself, the next possibility was that he was the forerunner of the Messiah, according to Malachi 4:5, “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord”. [Among the Fathers there seems to have been a belief that Elias would appear before the second Advent. Thus Tertullian (De anima, 50) says: “Translatus est Enoch et Elias, nec mors eorum reperta est, dilata scilicet. Caeterum morituri reservantur, ut Antichristum sanguine suo exstinguant.” Other references in Lampe.] But to this question also John answers οὐκ εἰμί, because the Jews expected Elias in person, so that although our Lord spoke of the Baptist as Elias (Matthew 17:10-13), John could not admit that identity without misleading them. If people need to question a great spiritual personality, replies in their own language will often mislead them. Another alternative presented itself: ὁ προφήτης εἶ σύ; “art thou the prophet?” viz., the prophet promised in Deuteronomy 18:15, “The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, like unto me”. Allusion is made to this prophet in four places in this Gospel, the present verse and John 1:25 of this chapter; also in John 6:14 and John 7:40. That the Jews did not see in this prophet the Messiah would appear from the present verse, and also from John 7:40 : “Some said, Of a truth this is the prophet; others said, This is the Christ”. The Jews looked for “a faithful prophet” (1Ma 14:41) who was to terminate the prophetic period and usher in the Messianic reign. But after Peter, as recorded in Acts 3:22, applied the prophecy of Deut. to Christ, the Christian Church adopted this interpretation. The use of the prophecy by Christ Himself justified this. But the different interpretations thus introduced gave rise to some confusion, and as Lightfoot points out, none but a Jew contemporary with Christ could so clearly have held the distinction between the two interpretations. (See Deane's Pseudepig., p. 121; Wendt's Teaching of Jesus, E. Tr., i., 67; and on the relation of “the prophet” to Jeremiah, see Weber, p. 339.) To this question also John answered “No”; “quia Prophetis omnibus erat praestantior” (Lampe). This negation is explained by the affirmation of John 1:23. Thus baffled in all their suggestions the deputies ask John to give them some positive account of himself, that they might not go back to those who sent them without having accomplished the object of their mission. To this second τίς εἶ; τί λέγεις περὶ σεαυτοῦ; (John 1:23) he replies in words made familiar by the Synoptists, ἐγώ φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ … ὁ προφήτης; John applies to himself the words of Isaiah 40:3, blending the two clauses ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν Κυρίου and εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν into one: εὐθύνατε τὴν ὁδὸν Κυρίου. By appropriating this prophetic description John identifies himself as the immediate precursor of the Messiah; and probably also hints that he himself is no personage worthy that inquiry should terminate on him, but only a voice. [Heracleon neatly graduates revelation, saying that the Saviour is ὁ λόγος, John is φωνή, the whole prophetic order ἦχος, a mere noise; for which he is with some justice rebuked by Origen.] “The desert,” a pathless, fruitless waste fitly symbolises the spiritual condition of the Messiah's people. For the coming of their King preparation must be made, especially by such repentance as John preached. “If Israel repent but for one day, the Messiah will come.” Cf. Weber, p. 334.

[28]isch. Tischendorf.

[29] Westcott and Hort.