Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 1:21
And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that Prophet? And he answered, No.
21. What then? ] ‘ What then are we to think?’ or, ‘ What then art thou?’
Art thou Elias? ] The Scribes taught that Elijah would come again before the coming of the Messiah (Mat 17:10), and this belief is repeatedly alluded to in the Talmud. Comp. Mal 4:5.
I am not ] A forger would scarcely have ventured on this in the face of Mat 11:14, where Christ says that John is Elijah. But Christ is there speaking figuratively (comp. Luk 1:17); John is here speaking literally. He says he is not Elijah returned to the earth again.
that prophet ] Rather, the Prophet, the well-known Prophet of Deu 18:15, who some thought would be a second Moses, others a second Elijah, others the Messiah. From Joh 7:40-41 we see that some distinguished ‘the Prophet’ from the Messiah; and from Mat 16:14 it appears that Jeremiah or other prophets were expected to return. Comp. 2Es 2:18; 1Ma 14:41 . This verse alone is almost enough to prove that the writer is a Jew. Who but a Jew would know of these expectations? Or if a Gentile chanced to know them, would he not explain them to his readers? In Joh 1:25, Joh 6:14; Joh 6:48; Joh 6:69 our translators have repeated the error of translating the definite article by ‘that’ instead of ‘the.’
No ] The Baptist knows that ‘the Prophet’ is the Messiah. His replies grow more and more abrupt; ‘I am not the Christ,’ ‘I am not,’ ‘No.’
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Art thou Elias? – This is the Greek way of writing Elijah. The Jews expected that Elijah would appear before the Messiah came. See the notes at Mat 11:14. They supposed that it would be the real Elijah returned from heaven. In this sense John denied that he was Elijah; but he did not deny that he was the Elias or Elijah which the prophet intended Mat 3:3, for he immediately proceeds to state Joh 1:23 that he was sent, as it was predicted that Elijah would be, to prepare the way of the Lord; so that, while he corrected their false notions about Elijah, he so clearly stated to them his true character that they might understand that he was really the one predicted as Elijah.
That prophet – It is possible that the Jews supposed that not only Elijah would reappear before the coming of the Messiah, but also Jeremiah. See the notes at Mat 16:14. Some have supposed, however, that this question has reference to the prediction of Moses in Deu 18:15.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 21. Art thou Elias?] The scribes themselves had taught that Elijah was to come before the Messiah. See Mt 17:10; and this belief of theirs they supported by a literal construction of Mal 4:5.
Art thou that prophet?] the prophet spoken of by Moses, De 18:15, De 18:18. This text they had also misunderstood: for the prophet or teacher promised by Moses was no other than the Messiah himself. See Ac 3:22. But the Jews had a tradition that Jeremiah was to return to life, and restore the pot of manna, the ark of the covenant, c., which he had hidden that the Babylonians might not get them. Besides this, they had a general expectation that all the prophets should come to life in the days of the Messiah.
I am not.] I am not the prophet which you expect, nor Elijah: though he was the Elijah that was to come for in the spirit and power of that eminent prophet he came, proclaiming the necessity of reformation in Israel. See Mat 11:14; Mat 17:10-13.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
John was at Bethabara when these messengers came to him, Joh 1:28. They asked him if he were Elias. The Jews had not only an expectation of the Messias, but of Elias to come as a messenger before him, according to the prophecy, Mal 4:5; as appeareth, Mat 17:10; Mar 9:11; of which they had a gross conception here, that Elias should come out of heaven personally, or at least that his soul should come into another body, according to the Pythagorean opinion. Now the meaning of the prophecy was, that one should come like Elias; and this was fulfilled in John, Luk 1:17, as our Saviour tells us, Mat 17:12; Mar 9:13; but they asked the question according to that notion they had of Elias. To which John answereth, that he was not; neither that Elias that ascended in a fiery chariot to heaven; nor any body informed with Eliass soul: and thus the words of our Saviour, Mat 17:12; Mar 9:12, are easily reconciled to this text. They go on, and ask him if he were
that prophet, or a prophet. Some think that they meant the Prophet promised, Deu 18:18; but that was no other than Christ himself, which he had before denied himself to be; nor doth it appear from any text of Scripture that the Jews had any expectation of any other particular prophet; but it is plain from Luk 9:8, that they had a notion that it was possible one of the old prophets might rise again from the dead, for so they guessed there concerning Christ. But others think that the article in the Greek here is not emphatical, and they only asked him if he were a prophet; for the Jews had a general notion, that the spirit of prophecy had left them ever since the times of Zechariah and Malachi; which they hoped was returned in John the Baptist, and about this they question him if he were a prophet. To which he answereth, No; neither that Prophet promised, Deu 18:18, nor yet any of the old prophets risen from the dead; nor yet one like the prophets of the Old Testament, who only prophesied of a Christ to come; but, as Christ calls him, Mat 11:9, more than a prophet, one who showed and declared to them a Christ already come; for the law and the prophets prophesied but until John; the law in its types foreshowing, the prophets in their sermons foretelling, a Messiah to come; John did more. His father indeed, Luk 1:76, called him the prophet of the Highest; but there prophet is to be understood not in a strict, but in a large sense, as the term prophecy is taken, Rom 12:6. And the term prophet often signifieth one that revealeth the will of God to men; in which large sense John was a prophet, and yet more than a prophet in the stricter notion of the term; and in that sense no prophet, that is, no mere prophet: so, Num 11:19, Moses tells the people they should not eat flesh one, or two, or five, or ten, or twenty days, because they should eat it a whole month together.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
21. Eliasin His own properperson.
that prophetannouncedin De 18:15, &c., aboutwhom they seem not to have been agreed whether he were the same withthe Messiah or no.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And they asked him, what then? art thou Elias?…. Elijah, the prophet; the Tishbite, as Nonnus in his paraphrase expresses it; who was translated, soul and body, to heaven: the Jews had a notion that that prophet would come in person a little before the coming of the Messiah; [See comments on Mt 17:10] wherefore these messengers inquire, that since he had so fully satisfied them that he was not the Messiah, that he would as ingenuously answer to this question, if he was Elias, or not:
and he saith, I am not; that is, he was not Elijah the prophet that lived in Ahab’s time, and was called the Tishbite; for John’s answer is to the intention of their question, and their own meaning in it, and is no contradiction to what Christ says of him, Mt 11:14 that he was the Elias that was to come; for he was the person meant by him in Mal 4:5 though not in the sense the Jews understood it; nor is it any contradiction to what the angel said to Zacharias, Lu 1:17 for he does not say that John should come in the body, but in the power and spirit of Elias; [See comments on Mt 11:14].
Art thou that prophet? Jeremiah, whom some of the Jews t have thought to be the prophet Moses spoke of, in De 18:15 and expected that he would appear about the times of the Messiah; see Mt 16:14 or any one of the ancient prophets risen from the dead, which they also had a notion of, Lu 9:8 or, as it may be rendered, “art thou a prophet?” for prophecy had long ceased with them:
and he answered, no; he was not Jeremiah, nor any one of the old prophets risen from the dead, nor a prophet in the sense they meant: he was not like one of the prophets of the Old Testament; he was a prophet, and more than a prophet, as Christ says, Mt 11:9 yet not such a prophet as they were; his prophesying lay not so much in predicting future events, as in pointing out Christ, and preaching the doctrine of the remission of sins by him.
t Baal Hatturim in Deut. xviii. 15. Tzeror Hammor, fol. 127. 4. & 143. 4. Siphre in Jarchi in Jer. i. 5.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
And they asked him ( ). Here the paratactic is like the transitional (then).
What then? ( ;). Argumentative like Paul’s in Ro 6:15. Quid ergo? Art thou Elijah? ( ;). The next inevitable question since Elijah had been understood to be the forerunner of the Messiah from Mal 4:5. In Mr 9:11f. Jesus will identify John with the Elijah of Malachi’s prophecy. Why then does John here flatly deny it? Because the expectation was that Elijah would return in person. This John denies. Jesus only asserts that John was Elijah in spirit. Elijah in person they had just seen on the Mount of Transfiguration.
He saith (). Vivid dramatic present.
I am not ( ). Short and blunt denial.
Art thou the prophet? ( ;). “The prophet art thou?” This question followed naturally the previous denials. Moses (De 18:15) had spoken of a prophet like unto himself. Christians interpreted this prophet to be the Messiah (Acts 3:22; Acts 7:37), but the Jews thought him another forerunner of the Messiah (Joh 7:40). It is not clear in Joh 6:15 whether the people identified the expected prophet with the Messiah, though apparently so. Even the Baptist later became puzzled in prison whether Jesus himself was the true Messiah or just one of the forerunners (Lu 7:19). People wondered about Jesus himself whether he was the Messiah or just one of the looked for prophets (Mark 8:28; Matt 16:14).
And he answered ( ). First aorist passive (deponent passive, sense of voice gone) indicative of , to give a decision from myself, to reply.
No (). Shortest possible denial.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1 ) “And they asked him, What then?” (kai erotesan auton ti oun) “And they quizzed him (further) what then?” That is, if you are not the Christ, the messiah -prophet, Deu 18:15-17, Who are you? Are you really a Divine messenger?
2) “Art thou Elias, And he saith, I am not.” (Elias ei su; lai legei ouk eime) “Are you Elias? And he replied, I am not,” He evidently reminded them of Elijah, which was suggested perhaps by Mal 4:5. John the Baptist replied that he was not Elias, meaning the person who was taken up to heaven, and whose return is expected; But he was Elias, in the sense Jesus later certified that he had been clothed with “the spirit and power of Elias,” Luk 1:17; Elias was the antitype of John the Baptist.
3) ”Art thou that prophet?” (ho prophetes ei su) “Are you the prophet?” The one who was to come, Deu 18:15,18. This indicates that his interrogators were familiar with the ancient prophecy of Moses concerning the prophet God was to raise up like unto him (Moses), a law giver, to be hearkened unto in everything he said, Joh 2:5; Act 3:22-23.
4) “And he answered, No.” (kai apekrithe ou) “And he replied, no.” Though there had not been born a prophet greater than he, among Old Testament prophets; yet, he was not that prophet of whom Moses prophesied, Joh 12:8; Joh 12:40; Mat 12:7-14.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
21. Art thou Elijah ? Why do they name Elijah rather than Moses? It was because they learned from the prediction of Mal 4:2, that when the Messiah, the Sun of Righteousness, should arise, Elijah would be the morning star to announce his approach. But the question is founded on a false opinion which they had long held; for, holding the opinion that the soul of a man departs out of one body into another, when the Prophet Malachi announced that Elijah would be sent, they imagined that the same Elijah, who lived under the reign of king Ahab, (1Kg 17:1,) was to come. It is therefore a just and true reply which John makes, that he is not Elijah; for he speaks according to the opinion which they attached to the words; but Christ, giving the true interpretation of the Prophet, affirms that John is Elijah, (Mat 11:14; Mar 9:13.)
Art thou a Prophet ? Erasmus gives an inaccurate explanation of these words by limiting them to Christ; for the addition of the article ( ὁ προφήτης, the prophet) carries no emphasis in this passage; and the messengers afterwards declare plainly enough, that they meant a different prophet from Christ; for they sum up the whole: by saying, (verse 25,) if thou art neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor a Prophet. Thus we see that they intended to point out different persons. Others think that they inquired if he was one of the ancient prophets; but neither do I approve of that exposition. Rather do they by this term point out the office of John, and ask if God had appointed him to be a prophet. When he replies, I am not, he does not for the sake of modesty tell a lie, but honestly and sincerely detaches himself from the company of the prophets. And yet this reply is not inconsistent with the honorable attestation which Christ gives him. Christ bestows on John the designation of prophet, and even adds that he is more than a prophet, (Mat 11:9😉 but by these words he does nothing more than demand credit and authority for his doctrine, and at the same time describes, in lofty terms, the excellence of the office which had been conferred on him. But in this passage John has a different object in view, which is, to show that he has no special message, as was usually the case with the prophets, but that he was merely appointed to be the herald of Christ.
This will be made still more clear by a comparison. All ambassadors — even those who are not sent on matters of great importance — obtain the name and authority of ambassadors, because they hold special commissions. Such were all the Prophets who, having been enjoined to deliver certain predictions, discharged the prophetic office. But if some weighty matter come to be transacted, and if two ambassadors are sent, one of whom announces the speedy arrival of another who possesses full power to transact the whole matter, and if this latter has received injunctions to bring it to a conclusion, will not the former embassy be reckoned a part and appendage of the latter, which is the principal? Such was the case with John the Baptist, to whom God had given no other injunction than to prepare the Jews for listening to Christ, and becoming his disciples. (35) That this is the meaning, will still more fully appear from the context; for we must investigate the opposite clause, which immediately follows. I am not a prophet, says he, but a voice crying in the wilderness. The distinction lies in this, that the voice crying, that a way may be prepared for the Lord, is not a prophet, but merely a subordinate minister, so to speak; and his doctrine is only a sort of preparation for listening to another Teacher. In this way John, though he is more excellent than all the prophets, still is not a prophet
(35) “ Sinon de preparer les Juifs a donner audience a Christ, et estre ses disciples.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(21) What then?Not What art thou then? but expressing surprise at the answer, and passing on with impatience to the alternative, Art thou Elias? (Comp. on this and the following question, Deu. 18:15; Deu. 18:18; Isaiah 40 ff.; Mal. 4:5; 2Ma. 2:1-8; and Note on Mat. 16:14). The angel had announced that he shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias. The Lord declared Elias is come already (Mat. 18:12-13), and yet the Forerunner can assert that, in the literal sense in which they ask the question and would understand the answer, he is not Elias, still less the prophet, by which, whether thinking of the words of Moses or the fuller vision of Isaiah from which he immediately quotes, he would understand the Messiah himself,
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
21. Art thou Elias? John may have quoted the prophecy of Malachi as applicable to himself; and the Jews may have reported that he claimed to be the literal Elijah, risen from the dead. To this supposition, embraced in their question, he gives a prompt negative.
That Prophet The prophet foretold by Moses as like unto himself; (Deu 18:15,) and which some Jews identified as being Jeremiah. There is perhaps here a descending scale of names, the Messiah, Elijah, Jeremiah. After exhausting all special names, they press John to a full self-description, that they may give answer to those who sent them.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Joh 1:21. Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. It is plain by this question, that they were strangers to the parentage of John the Baptist: and with regard to the reply that he makes to this inquiry,there is no scruple to be made, but that the Baptist might justly deny that he was Elijah; that is, the true and real Elijah, whom the Jews expected personally to return before the coming of the Messiah, though he came in his spirit and power. See on Luk 1:17. The Baptist therefore might truly deny himself to be Elijah in the sense of the inquirers. But still some have asked, why he did not express himself more fully, by acquainting them with his true character, and who he really was; which, as they apprehend, would have best suited with the simplicity and openness of his conduct at other times. But in the evangelist, after the answer given them by the Baptist, it is said, Joh 1:24. And they which were sent were of the Pharisees: which account of the persons was doubtless not subjoined without some good reason; and may seem to intimate, that they came not barely as inquirers, but with some ill design, which they would have improved, had he given them a more explicit answer. So that he treated them in no other manner than Christ himself thought fit to do upon some like occasions;as in the case of the tribute-money, Mat 22:17; Mat 22:46 and when they asked him if he was the Christ, Joh 10:24-25. And this method our Lord took while it was necessary in some measure to conceal himself: but afterwards when his time was come, upon the same question being put to him by the high-priest, he answered I am; Mar 14:62 and added further what he knew they would so interpret as to condemn him. Their next question is, Art thou that prophet? bywhich cannot be meant, as some interpret it, “That prophet, namely, the Messiah, whom Moses has assured us God will raise up, and of whom we are in daily expectation;” (see Deu 18:15-18. Joh 6:14.) because he had already assured them that he was not this prophet, Joh 1:20. I am not the Christ. The Greek should be rendered, Art thou a prophet? That is “of the former generation, raised from the dead!” And it is absolutely necessary that this question should be understood with such a limitation, because John the Baptist was really an illustrious prophet, as we may plainlysee from what is said by Christ himself, Mat 11:9. This interpretation, which is largely vindicated by Castalio, seems much preferable to that of Theophylact and Erasmus; who, because of the article , would render it as we do, that prophet; concluding, without any proof, that the Jews understood Deu 18:18 not of the Messiah himself, but of some prophet of considerable note, who was to introduce him. Grotius has supposed the question which they offer, to refer to Jeremiah, of whose return to life there was a mighty rumour prevailing among the Jews. See on Mat 16:14. But there seems no reason to restrain it to a particular prophet; and since, as Limborch well observes, in his dispute with Orobio the Jew, that text in Deuteronomy was the clearest and strongest in all the Mosaic writings, to enforce the necessity of submitting to the Messiah; it is most probable that John would have corrected so great a mistake, if they had put the question to him upon this presumption. The best French versions render it as above; and it seems the word prophet in the evangelist generally signifies one of those holy men, who were the messengers of God to Israel of old; which appears especially from Mar 6:15 where to be a prophet, and to be as one of the prophets, are spoken of as distinct; which they could not be but on this interpretation.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 1:21 . In consequence of this denial, the next point was to inquire whether he was the Elias who, according to Mal 4:5 , was expected (back from heaven) as the immediate forerunner of the Messiah.
] not, quid ergo es (Beza et al .), but as does not again occur (vers. 19, 22): what then is the case , if thou art not the Messiah? what is the real state of the matter?
Art thou Elias? So put, the question assumes it as certain that John must give himself out to be Elias , after he had denied that he was the Messiah.
] He could give this answer, notwithstanding what is said in Luk 1:17 , Mat 11:14 ; Mat 17:10 (against Hilgenfeld), since he could only suppose his interrogators were thinking of the literal , not of the antitypical Elijah. Bengel well says: “omnia a se amolitur, ut Christum confiteatur et ad Christum redigat quaerentes.” He was conscious, nevertheless, according to Joh 1:23 , in what sense he was Elias; but taking the question as literally meant, there was no occasion for him to go beyond that meaning, and to ascribe to himself in a special manner the character of an antitypical Elias, which would have been neither prudent nor profitable. The is too definite an answer to the definite question, to be taken as a denial in general of every externally defined position (Brckner); he would have had to answer evasively.
;] The absence of any connecting link in the narrative shows the rapid, hasty manner of the interrogation. is marked out by the article as the well-known promised prophet, and considering the previous question , can only be a nameless one, and therefore not Jeremias , according to Mat 16:14 (Grotius, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Klee, Lange), but the one intended in Deu 18:15 , the reference of whom to the Messiah Himself (Act 3:22 ; Act 7:37 ; Joh 1:46 ; Joh 6:14 ) was at least not universal (comp. Joh 7:40 ), and was not adopted by the interrogators here. Judging from the descending climax of the points of these questions, they must rather have thought of some one inferior to Elias, or, in general, of an individual undefined, owing to the fluctuation of view regarding Him who was expected as “ the prophet .” [113] Nonnus well expresses the namelessness and yet eminence of this : , , , ; Observe how the rigid denials become shortened at last to the bare . Here also we have a no on the Baptist’s lips, because in his view Jesus was the prophet of Deu 18 .
[113] Luthardt thinks of the prophet in the second portion of Isaiah. Comp. Hofmann, Weissag u. Erf . II. p. 69. It would agree with this, that John immediately gives an answer taken from Isa 40 . But if his interrogators had had in mind Isaiah 40 ff., they would probably have designated him whom they meant more characteristically, viz. as the servant of Jehovah .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
Ver. 21. Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not ] sc. That Elias that you imagine, Elias the Tishbite, by a transanimation ( Pythagorica). As neither was he an angel, as some in Chrysostom’s time would gather out of Mal 3:1 . They that wrest the Scriptures are blinded, as Papists, and other brain sick heretics.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
21. ] ; equivalent to ; Joh 1:22 .
; ] The whole appearance of John reminded them of Elias: see Mat 3:4 , and compare 2Ki 1:8 . Besides, his announcement that the Kingdom of God was at hand , naturally led them to the prophecy Mal 4:5 , Lightfoot cites from the Rabbinical books testimonies that the Jews expected a general purification or baptism before the coming of the Messiah (from Eze 36:25-26 , and Zec 13:1 ), and that it would be administered by Elias.
. . ] The right explanation of this answer seems to be the usual one, that the deputation asked the question in a mistaken and superstitious sense, meaning Elias bodily come down from heaven, who was expected to forerun and anoint the Messias. (Our Lord seems to refer to the same extravagant notion in Mat 11:14 , , . .) In this sense , John was not Elias; nor indeed in any other sense, was he Elias: but only ( Luk 1:17 ) .
. ; ] From the prophecy of Moses, Deu 18:15 ; Deu 18:18 , the Jews expected some particular prophet to arise, distinct from the Messiah (this distinction however was not held by all, see ch. Joh 6:14 ), whose coming was, like that of Elias, intimately connected with that of the Messiah Himself: see ch. Joh 7:40-41 . In Mat 16:14 we have ‘Jeremiah, or one of the prophets’ apparently = this expected prophet. There seem to have been various opinions about him; all however agreeing in this, that he was to be one of the old prophets raised from the dead (see also 2Ma 2:1-8 ). This John was not: and he therefore answers this also in the negative.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
What then? = What then [are we to say]?
Elias = Elijah. Referring to Mal 4:5.
that prophet = the prophet. Referring to Deu 18:18, Compare Act 3:22, Act 3:23.
No. Greek. ou. App-105.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
21.] ; equivalent to ; Joh 1:22.
;] The whole appearance of John reminded them of Elias:-see Mat 3:4, and compare 2Ki 1:8. Besides, his announcement that the Kingdom of God was at hand, naturally led them to the prophecy Mal 4:5, Lightfoot cites from the Rabbinical books testimonies that the Jews expected a general purification or baptism before the coming of the Messiah (from Eze 36:25-26, and Zec 13:1), and that it would be administered by Elias.
. . ] The right explanation of this answer seems to be the usual one,-that the deputation asked the question in a mistaken and superstitious sense, meaning Elias bodily come down from heaven, who was expected to forerun and anoint the Messias. (Our Lord seems to refer to the same extravagant notion in Mat 11:14, , . .) In this sense, John was not Elias; nor indeed in any other sense, was he Elias:-but only (Luk 1:17) .
. ;] From the prophecy of Moses, Deu 18:15; Deu 18:18, the Jews expected some particular prophet to arise,-distinct from the Messiah (this distinction however was not held by all, see ch. Joh 6:14),-whose coming was, like that of Elias, intimately connected with that of the Messiah Himself: see ch. Joh 7:40-41. In Mat 16:14 we have Jeremiah, or one of the prophets apparently = this expected prophet. There seem to have been various opinions about him;-all however agreeing in this, that he was to be one of the old prophets raised from the dead (see also 2Ma 2:1-8). This John was not: and he therefore answers this also in the negative.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 1:21. , thou?) John had said, I am not the Christ. They persevere in asking about the subject: it would have been better for them to have asked about the prdicate, Who is the Christ? Where is He? But John presently leads on the conversation to this.- , I am not) He was a second Elijah; he was not the Tishbite himself, about whom their enquiry was. He rejects from himself all things [all the characters, which their conjectures attributed to him], in order that he may confess Christ, and bring the enquirers to Christ.- , the Prophet) that one, of whom Deu 18:15; Deu 18:18, spake [The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken, etc.] The article has reference to the promise of the prophet, who was about to teach all things, and to the expectation of the people. Yet they supposed Him not only to be distinct from Christ, but even inferior to Elias, as is evident from the gradually descending climax here, and in Joh 1:25 [Christ-Elias-that prophet]: although the people afterwards regarded the prophet as the same as Messiah the King, ch. Joh 6:14-15 [Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world; When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take Him by force, to make him a king, etc.]; and again, on the contrary, they looked on the prophet as a distinct person from the Christ, ch. Joh 7:40-41. [Many said, Of a truth this is the Prophet; others said, This is the Christ.]- , art thou) they enumerate all those of whose coming prophecy had foretold.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 1:21
Joh 1:21
And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not. Art thou the prophet? And he answered, No.-It had been foretold that a great prophet should come into the world and that before the coming of that prophet Elijah should come again. He told them that he was neither Elijah nor this great prophet that was to come. Jesus said, And if you are willing to receive it, this [John the Immerser] is Elijah that is to come.” (Mat 11:14). This statement of Jesus is thought to contradict Johns statement in this verse, but it is explained by Jesus when he says, And he shall go before his face in the spirit and power of Elijah. (Luk 1:17). John meant that he was not the veritable Elijah. Jesus said he came in the spirit and power of Elijah. [The Jews doubtless asked art thou literally Elijah. He said no. Art thou that prophet foretold by Moses? No, for Christ is that prophet. The difference is doubtless that one speaks of the literal Elijah, the other who came in the spirit of Elijah. No contradiction here.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Art thou Elias: Mal 4:5, Mat 11:14, Mat 17:10-12, Luk 1:17
Art thou that: or, Art thou a, Joh 1:25, Joh 7:40, Deu 18:15-18, Mat 11:9-11, Mat 16:14
Reciprocal: 1Ki 17:1 – Elijah Mar 6:15 – it is Elias Mar 8:28 – Elias Luk 7:16 – a great Luk 9:8 – General Luk 9:19 – John Joh 6:14 – This Joh 7:39 – Of 2Co 4:5 – we
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1
The inquirers became specific in their questioning. By Elias, they meant the person predicted in Mal 4:5. That prophet was their reference to a prediction of Moses in Deu 18:15-20. To all of these questions, John gave a negative answer which left the inquirers without the desired information.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
[Art thou that prophet?] that is, Luk 9:8; Luk 9:19; one of the old prophets that was risen again.
I. The Masters of Traditions were wont to say that “the spirit of prophecy departed from Israel after the death of Zechariah and Malachi.” So that we do not find they expected any prophet till the days of the Messiah; nor indeed that any, in that interim of time, did pretend to that character.
II. They believed that at the coming of the Messiah the prophets were to rise again.
“‘Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice, with the voice together shall they sing,’ Isa 52:8. R. Chaia Bar Abba and R. Jochanan say, All the prophets shall put forth a song with one voice.”
“All the just whom God shall raise from the dead shall not return again into the dust.” Gloss, “Those whom he shall raise in the days of the Messiah.”
To this resurrection of the saints they apply that of Mic 5:5; “We shall raise against him seven shepherds; David in the middle, Adam, Seth, Methuselah on his right hand; Abraham, Jacob, and Moses on his left. And eight principal men: but who are these? Jesse, Saul, Samuel, Amos, Zephaniah, Zedekiah [or rather Hezekiah, as Kimch. in loc.], Messiah and Elijah. But indeed [saith R. Solomon] i do not well know whence they had these things.” Nor indeed do I.
The Greek interpreters, instead of eight principal men have eight bitings of men; a very foreign sense.
Hence by how much nearer still the ‘kingdom of heaven,’ or the expected time of Messiah’s coming, drew on, by so much the more did they dream of the resurrection of the prophets. And when any person of more remarkable gravity, piety, and holiness appeared amongst them, they were ready to conceive of him as a prophet raised from the dead, Mat 16:14. That therefore is the meaning of this question, “Art thou one of the prophets raised from the dead?”
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Joh 1:21. And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not. The question was a natural one, for the thought of the coming of Elijah was intimately associated with that of the coming of Messiah (Mal 4:5). The answer seems less natural, for our Lord, when He spoke of the Baptist, described him as Elijah which was for to come (Mat 11:14). It is possible that even the Baptist himself did not Know that he was Elijah in this latter sense, and hence could reply without hesitation that he is not that prophet.
Art thou the prophet? And he answered, No. A third supposition is tried. Is he the prophet? A comparison of Joh 1:25 and Joh 7:40-41, with Joh 6:14-15, seems to lead to the conclusion that there were at this time two currents of opinion with regard to the coming prophet (Deu 18:15), the one distinguishing him from the Messiah, the other maintaining that the two characters would be united in him that should come. But that a prophet would certainly appear at the opening of the Messianic age was expected by all. Hence the question, as now put, covered the only other supposition that could explain the important position which the Baptist had assumed, and which appeared to indicate that he was introducing a new era. But the main point with the Baptist is to show that, strictly speaking, he is simply the herald of that era. He is only to prepare the way for Him in whom it both begins and is completed (comp. Mat 11:11-13). The new supposition is accordingly repudiated in terms as emphatic as before.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
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 (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 rather than in this sense. De Wette sees in these words an adverbial expression: What then! This sense is pointless. We must, rather, supply , 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 (Joh 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 (Mat 16:14; Mar 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 (Joh 7:40-41); others confounded him with the Messiah (Joh 6:14). The question was, evidently, as to the personage announced by Moses (a prophet like unto me), in the promise in Deu 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 (Luk 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.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Verse 21
I am not; that is, he was not Elias, or Elijah, in a literal and personal sense. The Jews understood the prophecy, Malachi 4:5, to mean that Elias himself was to rise from the dead, and reappear upon earth; whereas the meaning was, that a new prophet should arise, with the bold and energetic character of Elijah, as is expressed by the angel, Luke 1:17.–That prophet. It is not certain to what expectation of the Jews this question refers. From Matthew 16:14, it seems that the reappearance of Jeremiah might have been looked for as a prelude to the coming of Christ. In Deuteronomy 18:15, the coming of a prophet is mentioned; and this may have been the prediction referred to here.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
1:21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, {i} I am not. Art thou {k} that prophet? And he answered, No.
(i) The Jews thought that Elias would come again before the days of the Messiah, and they took as the basis of their opinion Mal 4:5 , which is to be understood as referring to John, see Mat 11:14 . And yet John denies that he is Elias, answering their question just as they meant it.
(k) They are inquiring about some great prophet, and not about Christ, for John denied before that he is Christ, for they thought that some great prophet would be sent like Moses, using to support this position De 18:15 , which is to be understood to refer to all the company of the prophets and ministers, which have been and shall be to the end, and especially of Christ who is the head of all prophets.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The leaders asked John if he was Elijah because messianic expectation was high then due to Daniel’s prediction that dated the appearance of Messiah then (Dan 9:25). Malachi had predicted that Elijah would return to herald the day of the Lord that Messiah would inaugurate (Mal 4:5-6).
"Popularly it was believed that Elijah would anoint the Messiah, and thereby reveal his identity to him and to Israel (see Justin, Apology 35.1)." [Note: Beasley-Murray, p. 24.]
When John the Baptist denied being Elijah, he was denying being Elijah himself. His dress, diet, lifestyle, and ministry, however, were very similar to Elijah’s.
The prophet whom the leaders had in mind when they asked their third question was the prophet that Moses had predicted would come (Deu 18:15-18). Merrill pointed out that of the 42 New Testament citations of Deu 18:15-19, 24 of them appear in John’s Gospel. [Note: Eugene H. Merrill, "Deuteronomy, New Testament Faith, and the Christian Life," in Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, p. 27.] This prophet would bring new revelation from God and might lead the Israelites in a new Exodus and overcome their oppressors. The Jews incorrectly failed to identify this prophet with Messiah (cf. Joh 7:40-41). In contrast, the earliest Christian preachers contended that "the prophet" was identical with the Messiah (cf. Act 3:22). John the Baptist claimed that he was not that long-expected prophet any more than he was the Messiah or Elijah.