John 1:21

Ver. 21. “ And they asked him: what then?Art thou Elijah? And he said I am not. Art thou the prophet? And he answered, No. ”

Some interpreters understand the question τί οὖν (what then?) in the same or nearly the same sense as the preceding: “If thou art not the Christ, what art thou then? ” But the two following questions: “ Art thou Elias...?” would imply τίς rather than τί in this sense. De Wette sees in these words an adverbial expression: “ What then! ” This sense is pointless. We must, rather, supply ἐστί, with Meyer: “What then is the case? What extraordinary thing, then, is happening?” This form of question betrays impatience. There was, indeed, in the unprecedented behavior of John the Baptist something which seemed to indicate an exceptional condition. Malachi had announced (John 4:5) the coming of Elijah as the one preparing for the great Messianic day, and we know from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, that, according to a popular opinion, the Messiah was to remain hidden until he had been pointed out and consecrated by this prophet. Several passages of the Gospels (Matthew 16:14; Mark 6:15) prove that there was, besides this, an expectation of the reappearance of some other prophet of the ancient times, Jeremiah for example. Among these expected personages, there was one who was especially called the prophet. Some distinguished him from the Messiah (John 7:40-41); others confounded him with the Messiah (John 6:14). The question was, evidently, as to the personage announced by Moses (“a prophet like unto me”), in the promise in Deuteronomy 18:18. Of course, the people did not picture to themselves a second Elijah or a new Moses in the spiritual sense, as when the angel says of John the Baptist (Luke 1:17), “ He shall go in the spirit and power of Elijah. ” It was the person himself who was to reappear in flesh and bones. How could John the Baptist have affirmed, in this literal sense, his identity with the one or the other of these ancient personages? On the other hand, how could he enter into the domain of theological distinctions? Besides, this mode of discussion would be scarcely in accordance with his character. His reply, therefore, must be negative.