Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 1:25
And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elijah, neither that prophet?
25. Why baptizest thou then? ] ‘What right have you to treat Jews as if they were proselytes and make them submit to a rite which implies that they are impure?’ Had they forgotten Zec 13:1; Eze 36:25?
be not that Christ, &c.] Better, art not the Christ, nor yet Elijah, nor yet the Prophet. See on Joh 1:21.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Why baptizest thou then … – Baptism on receiving a proselyte from paganism was common before the time of John, but it was not customary to baptize a Jew. John had changed the custom. He baptized all, and they were desirous of knowing by what authority he made such a change in the religious customs of the nation. They presumed, from the fact that he introduced that change, that he claimed to be a prophet or the Christ. They supposed that no one would attempt it without pretending, at least, authority from heaven. As he disclaimed the character of Christ and of the prophet Elijah, they asked whence he derived his authority. As he had just before applied to himself a prediction that they all considered as belonging to the fore runner of Christ, they might have understood why he did it; but they were blind, and manifested, as all sinners do, a remarkable slowness in understanding the plainest truths in religion.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 25. Why baptizest thou then?] Baptism was a very common ceremony among the Jews, who never received a proselyte into the full enjoyment of a Jew’s privileges, till he was both baptized and circumcised. But such baptisms were never performed except by an ordinance of the Sanhedrin, or in the presence of three magistrates: besides, they never baptized any Jew or Jewess, nor even those who were the children of their proselytes; for, as all these were considered as born in the covenant, they had no need of baptism, which was used only as an introductory rite. Now, as John had, in this respect, altered the common custom so very essentially, admitting to his baptism the Jews in general, the Sanhedrin took it for granted that no man had authority to make such changes, unless especially commissioned from on high; and that only the prophet, or Elijah, or the Messiah himself; could have authority to act as John did. See the observations at the conclusion of Mark.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The Pharisees themselves would allow the Messiah, or Elias, or a prophet, to make any additions to or alterations in the worship of God, but none else: hence it is they ask, by what authority he baptized, if he were none of these? From whence we may learn, that although they might have some umbrage of that baptismal washing which was under the gospel, to commence into a sacrament, or federal sign, in the washing of their proselytes, or of Jewish children when they were circumcised; yet Johns action was looked upon as new, who baptized adult Jews: now the care of the sanhedrim was to keep the worship of God incorrupt, and the Pharisees amongst them had a particular zeal in the case, especially so far as the traditions of the elders were concerned.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
25. Why baptizest thou, if not,&c.Thinking he disclaimed any special connection withMessiah’s kingdom, they demand his right to gather disciples bybaptism.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And they asked him, and said unto him,…. They put a question, by saying to him,
why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? since he denied that he was the Messiah, or Elias that was to come before the Messiah, according to the expectation of the Jews, or that prophet, or a prophet, they demand by what authority he introduced a new rite and ordinance among them, which they had never been used to; for though there were divers washings or baptisms among them, enjoined by the law of Moses in certain cases, and others which obtained by tradition, as the immersion of themselves after they had been at market, and of cups, pots, brazen vessels, and tables, yet nothing of this kind that John administered: and as for the baptism of proselytes, it seems to be of a later date than this, and had no manner of likeness to it. The ordinance John administered was such, as they apprehended that no one ought to practise, unless he was the Messiah, or his forerunner, or some eminent prophet; they insist upon it therefore, that since he denied he was either of these, that he would show his credentials, and what commission he had from God to baptize; or they suggest he was liable to be called to an account by their sanhedrim, and be condemned as a false prophet, or an innovator in religious affairs. From hence it appears, that the Jews expected that baptism would be administered in the times of the Messiah, and his forerunner; but from whence they had this notion, it is not easy to say, whether from Zec 13:1 as Grotius, or from Eze 36:25 as Lightfoot; nor do they speak contemptibly of it, but rather consider it as a very solemn affair, to be performed only by great personages: and this may teach modern ones to think and speak more respectfully of this ordinance than they do, who have given themselves great liberties, and have treated it with much contempt and virulence; calling it by the names of uncleanness, abomination, filthy water, and a devoting of persons to Satan z: likewise, it is clear from hence, that they expected that this ordinance would be first administered by some person of very great note, either some very famous prophet, as Elias, whom they looked for before the coming of the Messiah, or else the Messiah himself, and not by a common teacher, or any ordinary person; wherefore this rite, as performed by John, could have no likeness with any thing that was in common use among them: besides, it was expressly done in the name of the Messiah, Ac 19:5 therefore they conclude he, or his forerunner, must be come; and that John must be one, or other of them, otherwise, why did he administer it? and it is also evident from hence, that no such practice had obtained before among them, or they would not have been alarmed at it, as they were; nor would they have troubled themselves to have sent after John, and inquire of him who he was, that should practise in this manner.
z Vet. Nizzachon, p. 56, 62, 64, 70, 74, 77, 148, 191, 193.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Why then baptizest thou? ( ;). In view of his repeated denials (three here mentioned).
If thou art not ( ). Condition of first class. They did not interpret his claim to be “the voice” to be important enough to justify the ordinance of baptism. Abrahams (Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels) shows that proselyte baptism was probably practised before John’s time, but its use by John was treating the Jews as if they were themselves Gentiles.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “And they asked him and said unto him,” (kai erotesan auton kai eipan auto) “And inquiring they said to him,” a fourth time, Joh 1:19; Joh 1:21-22. Who are you? They persisted with tautology; yet, he kept his message straight that he was the prophesied forerunner or fore-fixer for Jesus’ coming. 0 that men would yet be as steadfast in the Word and witnessing that Jesus has sent them to do, Act 1:8; 1Co 15:8; Gal 6:9.
2) “Why baptizest thou then,” (ti oun baptizeis ei) “Why then are you, or do you, baptize,” “Why do you immerse people?” Yes, the root word for baptize means to dip, submerge, or immerse, not to sprinkle or pour, see? And he required repentance of sin and faith and a fruit of repentance before he would baptize them as he had been Divinely mandated to do, Joh 1:6; Joh 1:33; Mat 3:1-8; Act 19:4.
3) “If thou be not,” (ei su ouk ei) “If you are not,” if you do not exist as, 4) “That Christ, nor Elias,” (ho Christos oude Elias) “The Christ (the Messiah) nor Elias,” the person of Elijah or that forerunner of the terrible day of the Lord, Mal 4:5.
5) “Neither that prophet?” (oude ho prophetes) “Nor even the prophet,” of which Moses wrote? Deu 18:15-18. And for whom true believers like Simeon and Anna had long waited, Luk 2:25-38; Act 3:22-23; Joh 7:40.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
25. Why then dost thou baptize ? By laying down those three degrees, they appear to form a very conclusive argument : if thou art not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor a prophet; for it does not belong to every man to institute the practice of baptism. The Messiah was to be one who possessed all authority. Of Elijah who was to come, they had formed this opinion, that he would commence the restoration both of the royal authority and of the Church. The prophets of God, they readily grant, have a right to discharge the office committed to them. They conclude, therefore, that for John to baptize is an unlawful novelty, since he has received from God no public station. But they are wrong in not acknowledging him to be that Elijah who is mentioned by Mal 4:5; though he denies that he is that Elijah of whom they foolishly dreamed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(25) Why baptizest thou then?Baptism, which was certainly one of the initiatory rites of proselytes in the second or third century A.D., was probably so before the work of the Baptist. It is not baptism, therefore, which is strange to the questioners, but the fact that he places Jews and even Pharisees (Mat. 3:7) in an analogous position to that of proselytes, and makes them to pass through a rite which marks them out as impure, and needing to be cleansed before they enter the kingdom of heaven. By what authority does he these things? They had interpreted such passages as Eze. 36:25 ff. to mean that Baptism should be one of the marks of Messiahs work. None less than the Christ, or Elias, or the prophet could enact a rite like this. John is assuming their power, and yet is not one of them.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
‘And they asked him and said to him, “Why then are you baptising if you are not the Christ, or Elijah, or the prophet?”
They were puzzled by his baptism. They recognised that it must have some great religious significance but it was one they did not understand. Nor were they sure where he felt he had obtained the authority to perform such a baptism. If he did not see himself as the expected Messiah, or as Elijah, or as the great Prophet, why was he baptising? They almost certainly saw his baptising as a special aspect of ceremonial washing, although recognising that it was once for all, and wanted to know his credentials for introducing such an idea. To bring about such a new approach he had to be someone of outstanding importance.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 1:25. Why baptizest thou then, The Jews, it seems, had conceived an opinion that they were all to be baptized, either by Messiah himself, or by some of his retinue; which they drew from Zec 13:1.though that prophecy is to be taken in a most spiritual sense. The decisions of the Pharisees were held by the common people as infallible; wherefore they are mentioned Joh 1:24.; and as this sect had determined that onlyproselytes were to be baptized, they found fault with John for baptizing the Jews, seeing he was neither the Messiah, nor Elias,nor a prophet. They thought his altering, in this manner, their institutions, was an exercise of authority, which, by his own confession, did not belong to him. It is not to be certainly determined from this text, whether the baptism of proselytes was then in use among the Jews or not. The words indeed will make a strong and well-adapted sense, should they be understood as if it had been said, “Why is it then that thou dost institute such a new rite as this?” But surely too they will be very proper in the other sense, if we understand them to imply, “Why is it then that thou takest upon thee, without any commission from the Sanhedrim, to administer baptism; and that not only, as is usual, unto those who before this were heathens, but even to the Jews?” And this seems to be the more probable sense; while the Baptist’s use of this ceremony in such a manner was a strong intimation that Jews, as well as Gentiles, must become proselytes to the new dispensation which was then opening to the world; and that however holy they imagined themselves, yet they all stood in absolute need of being washed from their sins, as he had before most emphatically declared, Mat 3:8-9.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
Ver. 25. Why baptizest thou then? ] Why dost thou innovate anything in the rites of religion? A change they looked for under the Messiah, and had learned it out of Jer 31:31-34 . But this testimony brought by John Baptist out of Isaiah, to prove his own calling, either they did not or would not understand; nor yet do they seek to be better informed by him.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
25. ] On , see note on Joh 1:13 . This question shews probably that they did not interpret Isa 40:3 of any herald of the Messiah. They regarded baptism as a significant token of the approach of the Messianic Kingdom, and they asked, ‘Why baptizest thou, if thou art no forerunner of the Messiah?’
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
baptizest . . . ? App-115. They expected baptism, from Eze 86:25.
if. App-118.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
25.] On , see note on Joh 1:13. This question shews probably that they did not interpret Isa 40:3 of any herald of the Messiah. They regarded baptism as a significant token of the approach of the Messianic Kingdom, and they asked, Why baptizest thou, if thou art no forerunner of the Messiah?
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 1:25
Joh 1:25
And they asked him, and said unto him, Why then baptizest thou, if thou art not the Christ, neither Elijah, neither the prophet?-John gave as his reason for baptizing that he was come preparing for the Messiah and he baptized in water and the Messiah would baptize in the Holy Spirit. [The question shows that Johns baptism was to them a new rite. They could understand that Christ, or Elias, or the prophets might establish a new ordinance by divine authority, but if John is none of these, why does he do so? Their perplexity shows that the baptismal right was new to them. This refutes the claim that Gentile proselytes to the Jewish faith were baptized by all Jewish authorities before this time.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Reciprocal: 1Ki 17:1 – Elijah Mal 4:5 – I will Mat 3:6 – were Mat 17:10 – Why Mat 21:25 – baptism Mar 6:15 – it is Elias Luk 7:16 – a great Luk 9:19 – John Joh 1:21 – Art thou that Joh 1:24 – General Joh 2:18 – seeing Joh 3:28 – I said Joh 7:39 – Of
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5
It is uncertain as to when the practice of baptism began among the Jews. History reveals that it became a part of the ceremonies that introduced Gentile proselytes into the religion of the Jews, and in some particulars admitted them to the privileges of the same. But since those cases were performed upon Gentiles only, and John performed his baptism on Jews only (Luk 1:16), the Pharisees thought the work he was doing was for the purpose of introducing some new system (which was true). And such a radical movement, as they thought, should properly be initiated by some note-worthy person, such as the ones they named to John.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
[Why then baptizest thou?] the Jews likewise expected that the world should be renewed at the coming of the Messiah. “In those years wherein God will renew his world.” Aruch, quoting these words, adds, “In those thousand years.” So also the Gloss upon the place.
Amongst other things, they expected the purifying of the unclean. R. Solomon upon Eze 36:26; “I will expiate you, and remove your uncleanness, by the sprinkling of the water of purification.” Kimchi upon Zec 9:6; “The Rabbins of blessed memory have a tradition that Elias will purify the bastards and restore them to the congregation.” You have the like in Kiddushin, Elias comes to distinguish the unclean and purify them; etc.
When therefore they saw the Baptist bring in such an unusual rite, by which he admitted the Israelites into a new rule of religion, they ask him by what authority he doth these things if he himself were not either the Messiah or Elias, or one of the prophets raised from the dead.
It is very well known that they expected the coming of Elias, and that, from the words of Mal 4:5; not rightly understood. Which mistake the Greek version seems to patronise; I will send you Elias the Tishbite; which word the Tishbite; they add of themselves in favour of their own tradition; which indeed is too frequent a usage in that version to look so far asquint towards the Jewish traditions as to do injury to the sacred text.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Joh 1:25. And they asked him, and said unto him. Why baptizest thou then, if thou art not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet? The Jews, the representatives of the theocratic spirit of the people, had been mainly concerned about the position of the Baptist in relation to the national hopes. Could it be that he was about to assume the government of the nation, and to lead it to victory? The Pharisees concern themselves more about the rite administered by the Baptist. It is the baptism of persons belonging to the chosen people that startles them. They might have viewed his baptism without surprise had he invited to it those only who were beyond the pale of Israel. But that one who, by his own confession, was neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet, should thus administer a rite symbolical of cleansing to those who, as Jews, were already clean, this it was that threw them into perplexity.On the significance of Johns baptism, see notes on chap. Joh 3:5 and Mat 3:6.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Ver. 25. And they asked him and said unto him; why baptizest thou then, if thou art not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet.
The strictest guardians of rites conceded, indeed, to the Messiah or to one of His forerunners the right of making innovations in the matter of observances; and if John had declared himself one of these personages, they would have contented themselves with asking for his credentials, and would have kept silence respecting his baptism, sufficiently legitimated by his mission. In fact, it seems to follow from this verse itself that, on the foundation of words such as those of Eze 36:25-26, and Zec 13:1, a great national lustration was expected as an inauguration of the kingdom of the Messiah. But John the Baptist having expressly declined the honor of being one of the expected prophets, the deputation had the right to say to him: Why then dost thou baptize? According to the reading of the T. R. nor, nor, the thought is this: The supposition that John is the Christ is set aside; there remains, therefore, no other way of explaining his baptism except that he is either the one or the other of the two expected forerunners; now he declares that he is neither the one nor the other; why then…etc. This delicate sense of the disjunctive negative was not understood; hence, in our view, the Alexandrian reading , , nor even, which puts the three cases on a common level. The partisans of the Alexandrian text (Weiss, Keil, Westcott, etc.), judge otherwise. The position of John the Baptist, in presence of this question and after his previous answer, became a difficult one. His interrogators, indeed, had counted on this result.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Verse 25
Why baptizest thou then, &c. Baptism seems to be here spoken of as a customary religious rite, which any distinguished religious teacher in might be expected to perform.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, {l} Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
(l) By this we may prove that the Jews knew there should be some change in religion under the Messiah.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Their question implied that it was inappropriate for John to baptize. The Jews practiced baptism for ritual cleansing, but in all cases the baptismal candidates baptized themselves. [Note: Carson, p. 145.] There was no precedent for John baptizing other people, and the Jews did not regard themselves as needing to repent. This was something Gentiles needed to do when they converted to Judaism. Evidently when Gentiles converted to Judaism, the males of the family underwent circumcision and all members of the family, both sexes, were baptized. [Note: Morris, p. 123.] Moreover since John was not one of the prophesied eschatological figures, he appeared to them to lack authority to do what he did.