Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 1:24
And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
24. And they which, &c.] Perhaps the better reading is, and there had been sent some of the Pharisees. S. John mentions neither Sadducees nor Herodians; only the Pharisees, the sect most opposed to Christ, is remembered by the Evangelist who had gone furthest from Judaism.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Were of the Pharisees – For an account of this sect, see the notes at Mat 3:7. Why they are particularly mentioned is not certainly known. Many of the Sadducees came to his baptism Mat 3:7, but it seems that they did not join in sending to him to know what was the design of John. This circumstance is one of those incidental and delicate allusions which would occur to no impostor in forging a book, and which show that the writers of the New Testament were honest men and knew what they affirmed. Because:
- The Pharisees composed a great part of the Sanhedrin, Act 23:6. It is probable that a deputation from the Sanhedrin would be of that party.
- The Pharisees were very tenacious of rites and customs, of traditions and ceremonies. They observed many. They believed that they were lawful, Mar 7:3-4. Of course, they believed that those rites might be increased, but they did not suppose that it could be done except by the authority of a prophet or of the Messiah. When, therefore, John came baptizing – adding a rite to be observed by his followers – baptizing not only Gentiles, but also Jews – the question was whether he had authority to institute a new rite; whether it was to be received among the ceremonies of religion. In this question the Sadducees felt no interest, for they rejected all such rites at once; but the Pharisees thought it was worth inquiry, and it was a question on which they felt themselves specially called on to act as the guardians of the ceremonies of religion.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Joh 1:24-27
They which were sent were of the Pharisees
The question of the Pharisees
1.
It is an evidence of a sick and corrupt Church when corrupt men are entrusted with most grave and weighty employments in it; for so was it with the Church of the Jews when they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
2. Corrupt men are more ready to jangle and lie at wait for advantages than to embrace the truth of God delivered by His servants; for these Pharisees take no notice of what He had said from Isaiah, nor seek to be further cleared in it, but think they have an advantage of him, that he should presume to baptize. Why baptizest thou, then, if thou be not that Christ? etc.
3. It was an uncontroverted truth, both among friends and foes, in the Jewish Church, that at the coming of the Messiah there should be some changes in the way of religion and an institution of new ordinances; for the Pharisees have nothing to say against his baptism if he were Christ, or Elias, or the prophet: their only objection is, Why baptizest thou, then, if thou he not? And Johns answer, I baptize, but there standeth One among you, etc., importeth that he being Christs forerunner, who was now come into the world, it was lawful for him to administer this sacrament.
4. Ministers ought to arrogate no more unto themselves than to be ministers and dispensers of the external means of word and sacraments, leaving the glory and efficacy thereof unto Christ entirely; and people ought so to be affected in coming to these ordinances. Therefore saith John, I baptize with water, not denying that Christ also baptized with water, nor yet denying that baptism administered by him was accompanied with grace and the Spirit of God; but he only compareth his person and office with Christs, and showeth that whatever grace came by the sacrament administered by him, yet he was not the giver of it, but Christ only, who had appointed him to dispense the outward seal.
5. Christ may be among a people, and yet they who reckon themselves very high in the Church neither see Him nor know Him; for saith John, there standeth One whom ye know not.
6. It is the duty of ministers, and will be the care of such as are faithful and zealous, to exalt and commend Christ at all occasions, that men may fall in love with Him. Therefore doth John again repeat his doctrine, He it is, etc.
7. The more high employment and the eminent gifts men have, and the more ready men are to esteem of them, the more will they abase themselves, if they be truly gracious, and be affected with the excellency of Christ; for it is John, the greatest among them that are born of women, and so much esteemed among the Jews, and the forerunner of Christ, who thus abaseth himself. He is preferred before me, whose shoes latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
8. Albeit Christ, of free grace, do honour men with eminent employments under Him, and particularly ministers of the gospel. Yet such as know Christ and themselves well will not only see that they are unworthy of the high employments they have, but even to do the basest service to Him; for John saith not, I am unworthy to be His forerunner, though employed in that service, but whose shoes latchet I am not worthy to unloose, which was a mean and base office. (G. Hutcheson.)
The Pharisees
represented the Judaism of the Post-Exilian era. Originally purists as well as legalists, they strove to carry out in practice the ideal of legal life set up by the scribes. Hence they were denominated Perushim, Pharisees or Separatists. First mentioned by Josephus under Jonathan and Hyrcanus, high priests about B.C. 145-150. In the time of Christ they had so far degenerated from their primitive piety as to make the essence of religion consist in ceremonial observance–an apostacy which drew down upon them the exposures, rebukes, and denunciations of Jesus. They were ultra-conservatives in Israel, the champions of orthodox literalism, and who accordingly watched everywhere with inquisitorial severity to see that the theocratic order was preserved intact, not merely as to ritual, but also with respect to the competence of office and doctrine (Joh_9:13; Joh_7:47-48; Joh_12:42). (T. Whitelaw, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Who these Pharisees were hath been before explained in our notes on Mat 3:7. They were of the strictest sect of the Jewish religion, Act 26:5. The greatest part of their councils was made up of those of this sect, as may be learned from Act 23:1-10. They were the men most zealous for and tenacious of the Jewish rites; and would allow nothing to be added to the Jewish worship to what they had received concerning it, either from the law of God, or the traditions of the elders.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. Who were the straitest sect of religion among the Jews; were very zealous of the traditions of the elders, and professed an expectation of the Messiah; and were famous in the nation for their knowledge and learning, as well as for their devotion and sanctity: and many of them were in the sanhedrim, as appears from Joh 3:1,
[See comments on Mt 3:7].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
They had been sent ( ). Periphrastic past perfect passive of .
From the Pharisees ( ). As the source () of the committee of Sadducees (verse 19).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “And they which were sent,” (kai apestalmenoi) “And those who had been sent to John,” the Jewish quizzing delegation, of priests and Levites, Joh 1:19. The Gk. word translated “sent” means mandated, commissioned, or specifically directed in what they were to do.
2) ”Were of the Pharisees.” (esan ek ton Pharisaion) “Were out of and from among the Pharisees, the conservative and most popular order of the Jewish religionists of the day, differing from the Sadducees, in that they believed in the existence of angels, spirits, and the resurrection of the dead, Act 23:8. For the Sadducee denied these three doctrinal tenets.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
24. Were of the Pharisees. He says that they were Pharisees, who at that time held the highest rank in the Church; and he says so in order to inform us, that they were not some contemptible persons of the order of the Levites, but men clothed with authority. This is the reason why they raise a question about his baptism. Ordinary ministers would have been satisfied with any kind of answer; but those men, because they cannot draw from John what they desired, accuse him of rashness for venturing to introduce a new religious observance.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(24) They which were sent.The best MSS. omit the relative, and the verse thus becomes, And they had been sent from the Pharisees. (For account of the Pharisees, see Note on Mat. 3:7.) The statement is made to explain the question which follows, but it should be observed that in this Gospel, where the Sadducees are nowhere mentioned, the term Pharisees seems to be used almost in the sense of Sanhedrin. (Comp. Joh. 4:1; Joh. 8:3; Joh. 11:46; Joh. 11:57.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
24. Were of the Pharisees Who held most strenuously that no prophet, after Moses, had a right to introduce any new sacred usage, rite, or ceremony among the Mosaic institutions, except the arrived Messiah himself. The question then in the following verse, Why baptizest thou then? was a very peremptory one.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And they had been sent from the Pharisees’.
The Pharisees were probably the most influential religious group in the eyes of the common people. They had originated from the Hasidim, the ‘separated ones’, who during the time of fierce religious persecution of the Jews a century or two earlier had stood firm for the Law (the Torah – ‘instruction’ – which was composed of the books of Moses, the first five books in the Bible), for circumcision and for the Sabbath, all of which had put them under sentences of death.
They were not a large group, possibly numbering around six or seven thousand, but having become convinced that the only hope for the future, and for eternal life, lay in complete fulfilment of the Law of Moses and obedience to the covenant, they had set about that task, and in order to do so hedged the Law around with hundreds of other interpretations of that Law which they sought to fulfil, many of which were not moral but ceremonial. Thus they lay great emphasis on ceremonial washings in various circumstances, at all times of the day, and in avoiding uncleanness, which included avoiding contact with those who did not follow their ceremonial ideas.
As always when men become ‘over-religious’ many of them became hypocritical, observing the outward requirements while failing in what mattered most, compassion and mercy. Many became censorious and ultra-critical, including, as was to be expected, many of their great teachers (later given the technical name of ‘the Rabbis’), although not all must be included within this criticism. It was against these ultra-critical Scribes and Pharisees that Jesus made His attacks, for they were the ones who followed Him around and sought to test Him out.
And it was because of their intense interest in religious matters that they had come to test out John, and as proponents of ceremonial washings they were especially interested in his baptism which they failed to understand.
It was of course right that they should want to ensure that he was a true prophet. That was the responsibility of the Jewish authorities. What was wrong was the attitude in which they did it.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The question concerning John’s baptism:
v. 24. And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
v. 25. And they asked him and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
v. 26. John answered them, saying, I baptize with water; but there standeth One among you whom ye know not;
v. 27. He it is, who, coming after me, is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
v. 28. These things were done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. The sect of the Pharisees was very strict in the observance of all rules and regulations concerning worship and the proprieties of service. The testimony of John relating to his specific work did not interest them, but the authority for his baptizing was a matter of much concern to them. The Jewish leaders of Jerusalem knew nothing of this man’s work; he had not asked their sanction. And so the delegates challenge his right to baptize, since by his own confession he is neither Christ, nor Elijah, nor that prophet. Since the answer to the question of the Pharisees was included in the passage from Isaiah, John was content with the opportunity of pointing to Jesus, and thus fulfilling his work. He puts himself and his baptism into deliberate contrast with Christ, and the baptism which Christ would employ in due time. John baptized with water. Through the water of baptism he confirmed and sealed his preaching unto repentance. He admonished the people of Israel that they were in need of a cleansing from sins. Those that were baptized by John confessed their sins. But still the baptism of John, though a means of grace, was of a preparatory nature; it pointed forward to the fulfillment of the redemption in Christ. And the Messiah was even then in the world, He was living in the midst of the Jewish people, though as yet unknown to them. He was the one that was after John in point of time, but in reality, and by virtue of His person and office, He surpassed His herald. And well John knew this, for he did not consider himself worthy of unlacing the straps of His sandals, and thus of performing the work of a slave for the Master. There was an unbridgeable abyss between divinity and humanity, between God and man. These things took place on the eastern side of the river Jordan, in a village or valley called Bethabara, at a ford which enabled travelers to cross over into Batanea. Note: John’s example in confessing Christ before the enemies of true salvation should encourage the Christians of all times to stand up courageously for Christ.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Joh 1:24 ff. The inquiry, which proceeds still further, finds a pragmatic issue in pharisaic style (for the Sanhedrim had chosen their deputies from this learned, orthodox, and crafty party). From their strict scholastic standing-point, they could allow ( ) so thoroughly reformatory an innovation as that of baptism (see on Mat 3:5 ), considering its connection with Messiah’s kingdom, only to the definite personalities of the Messiah, Elias, or the promised prophet, and not to a man with so vague a call as that which the Baptist from Isa 40:3 ascribed to himself, a passage which the Pharisees had not thought of explaining in a Messianic sense, and were not accustomed so to apply it in their schools. Hence the parenthetical remark just here inserted: “ And they that were sent belonged to the Pharisees ,” a statement, therefore, which points forwards, and does not serve as a supplementary explanation of the hostile spirit of the question (Euthymius Zigabenus, Lcke, and most others).
The reply corresponds to what the Baptist had said of himself in Joh 1:23 , that he was appointed to prepare the way for the Messiah. His baptism, consequently, was not the baptism of the Spirit, which was reserved for the Messiah (Joh 1:33 ), but a baptism of water, yet without the elementum coeleste; there was already standing, however, in their midst the far greater One, to whom this preparatory baptism pointed. The first clause of the verse, . , implies, therefore, that by his baptism he does not lay claim to anything that belongs to the Messiah (the baptism of the Spirit ); and this portion refers to the of Joh 1:25 . The second clause, however, , etc., implies that this preliminary baptism of his had now the justification, owing to his relation to the Messiah, of a divinely ordained necessity (Joh 1:23 ); since the Messiah, unknown indeed to them, already stood in their midst, and consequently what they allowed to Elias, or the prophet, dare not be left unperformed on his part; and this part of his answer refers to the in Joh 1:25 . Thus the question is answered by a twofold reason. There is much that is inappropriate in the remarks of expositors, who have not sufficiently attended to the connection: e.g ., De Wette overlooks the appropriateness of the answer to the Elias question; Tholuck contents himself with an appeal to the “laconic- comma style” of the Baptist; and Brckner thinks that “John wished to give no definite answer, but yet to indicate his relation to the Messiah, and the fact of his pointing to Him;” while Bumlein holds that the antithetical clause, . ., which was already intended to be here inserted, was forgotten , owing to the intervening sentences; and finally, Hilgenfeld, after comparing together Matthew and Luke, deduces the unhistorical character of the narrative. Heracleon already was even of opinion that John did not answer according to the question asked of him, but as he . In answer to him, Origen.
] has the emphasis of an antithesis to the higher Baptizer ( , etc.), not to (Godet). Next to this, the stress lies on . This is the element (see on Mat 3:11 ) in which his baptism was performed. This otherwise superfluous addition has a limiting force, and hence is important .
without the spurious is all the more emphatic; see on Joh 1:17 . The emphasizing of the antithesis , however, has brought this ] to the front, because it was the manifestation of the Messiah , already taking place in the very midst of the Jews , which justified John in baptizing. Had the Messiah been still far off, that baptism would have lacked its divine necessity; He was, however, standing in their midst, i.e . (Euthymius Zigabenus).
] reveals the reason why they could question as they had done in Joh 1:25 . The emphasis is on , as always (against Tholuck); here in contrast with the knowledge which he himself had (see on Joh 1:28 , note) of the manifested Messiah: you on your part, you people , have the Messiah among you, and know Him not (that is, as the Messiah). In Joh 1:27 , after rejecting the words and . (see the critical notes), there remains only (Joh 1:15 ), and that in fact as the subject of , which subject then receives the designation of its superiority over the Baptist in the , . . . Concerning this designation, see on Mat 3:11 .
] I for my part .
] worthy that I should loose; introduces the purpose of the . Comp. , Mat 8:8 , Luk 7:6 .
] placed first for emphasis, and corresponding to the . On after , see Winer, p. 140 [E. T. p. 184]. would have been still more emphatic.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
Ver. 24. Were of the Pharisees ] Men of renown in the congregation, for more authority’ sake: and such as by their office were to inquire into new doctrines and their authors.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
24. ] The reason of this explanation being added is not very clear. Lcke, with whom De Wette agrees, refers it to the apparent hostility of the next enquiry: but I confess I cannot see that it is more hostile than the preceding. Luthardt thinks that it imports, there were some present, who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees ( . ), which the words will hardly bear: see below. Might it not be to throw light on their question about baptizing , as the Pharisees were the most precise about all ceremonies, lustrations, &c.? Origen makes this a new deputation: but he is plainly wrong: see the below. Euthymius gives another reason yet: , .
Abandoning the (see var. readd.), we must render, And they (i.e. the whole deputation) were (or had been ) sent by the Pharisees; which will make it more probable that the explanation refers to the nature of the following question. has occurred above, Joh 1:19 , which gives additional probability to the reading of the text.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 1:24 . . This gives us the meaning “And they had been sent from,” which is not so congruous with the context as “And they who were sent were of the Pharisees”; because apparently this clause was inserted to explain the following question (Joh 1:25 ): ; Founding on Zec 13:1 , “In that day there shall be a fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness,” and on Eze 36:25 , “then will I sprinkle clean water upon you,” they expected a general purification before the coming of the Messiah. Hence their question. If John was not the Messiah, nor the prophet, nor Elias in close connection with the Messiah, why did he baptise? Lightfoot ( Hor. Heb. , p. 965) quotes from Kiddushin “Elias venit ad immundos distinguendum et ad purificandum”. See also Ammonius and Beza quoted in Lampe. In reply to this objection of the Pharisees (Joh 1:26 ) John says: , “I for my part baptise with water”; the emphatic “I” leading us to expect mention of another with whom a contrast is drawn. This contrast is further signified by the mention of the element of the baptism, ; a merely symbolic element, but also the element by baptism in which preparation for the Messiah was to be made. And John’s administration of this precursory baptism is justified by the fact he immediately states, . Had they been aware of this presence ( emphatic) as John was aware of it, they could not have challenged the baptism of John, because it was the divinely appointed preparation for the Messiah’s advent. This scarcely amounts to what Lampe calls it, “nova exprobratio ignorantiae Pharisaeorum” (Isa 42:19 ; Isa 29:14 ), because as yet they had had no opportunity of knowing the Christ. . There is no reason why the words should not be taken strictly. So Euthymius, . , denoting the immediate arrival of the Messiah and John’s close connection with Him. He is further described relatively to John as inconceivably exalted above him, . The grammatical form admitting both the relative and pers. pronoun is Hebraistic. also stands instead of the classical construction with the infinitive. Talmudists quote the saying: “Every service which a servant will perform for his master, a disciple will do for his Rabbi, except loosing his sandal thong”.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Joh 1:24-28
24Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. 25They asked him, and said to him, “Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” 26John answered them saying, “I baptize in water, but among you stands One whom you do not know. 27″It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.” 28These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
Joh 1:24 “they had been sent from the Pharisees” This text is ambiguous. It can mean (1) the Pharisees sent John’s questioners (cf. Joh 1:19) or (2) the questioners were Pharisees, which is unusual in light of the fact that most priests were Sadducees (cf. Joh 1:9). It seems to refer to another group than Joh 1:19.
SPECIAL TOPIC: PHARISEES
Joh 1:25 “‘Why then are you baptizing'” Proselyte baptism was normative in ancient Judaism for those Gentiles wishing to become converts, but it was highly unusual for Jews themselves to be baptized (the sectarian Jews of Qumran practiced self-baptisms and temple worshipers bathed themselves before entering). This text may involve Messianic implications from Isa 52:15; Eze 36:25; Zec 13:1.
“if” This is a first class conditional sentence which is assumed to be true from the author’s perspective or for his literary purposes.
“not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet” It is interesting in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls that these three personages represented the Essene view that there would be three different Messianic figures. It is also interesting that some early church leaders believed that Elijah would come physically before the Second Coming of Christ (cf. Chrysostom, Jerome, Gregory, and Augustine).
Joh 1:26 “I baptize in water” The preposition “in” can also mean “with.” Whichever option is chosen must match the parallel of Joh 1:33 concerning “the Spirit.”
“but among you stands One” There are several textual variants related to the tense of the verb “stands.” The UBS4 rates the perfect tense as “B” (almost certain).
Bruce M. Metzger asserts that the perfect tense is characteristic of John and implies a Hebrew idiom of “there is One who has taken his stand in your midst” (p. 199).
Joh 1:27 “the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie” This refers to the slave’s task of undoing his master’s sandals as he entered his home (considered the lowliest, most menial task a slave could perform). Rabbinical Judaism asserted that the rabbi’s disciple should be willing to do everything that a slave was willing to do except untie his shoes. There is also the unstated implication of removing the shoes and taking them to a designated place of storage. This was a metaphor of extreme humility.
Joh 1:28 “Bethany” The King James Version has the name “Bethabara” (MSS cf8 i2, C2). This was due to the KJV’s translators’ reliance on Origen’s misunderstanding (and allegorization of the place name) of the location of the city. The correct reading is Bethany (Bodmen Papyrus, P66)-not the one southeast of Jerusalem (cf. Joh 11:18), but the town across from Jericho, across the Jordan River (eastern side).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
were = had been.
Pharisees. App-120.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
24.] The reason of this explanation being added is not very clear. Lcke, with whom De Wette agrees, refers it to the apparent hostility of the next enquiry: but I confess I cannot see that it is more hostile than the preceding. Luthardt thinks that it imports, there were some present, who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees ( . ), which the words will hardly bear: see below. Might it not be to throw light on their question about baptizing, as the Pharisees were the most precise about all ceremonies, lustrations, &c.? Origen makes this a new deputation: but he is plainly wrong: see the below. Euthymius gives another reason yet: , .
Abandoning the (see var. readd.), we must render, And they (i.e. the whole deputation) were (or had been) sent by the Pharisees; which will make it more probable that the explanation refers to the nature of the following question. has occurred above, Joh 1:19, which gives additional probability to the reading of the text.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 1:24. , of the Pharisees) who made a great point of Jewish baptism; and acknowledged the baptism of John to be a thing of great moment, not to be administered except by one having a Divine mission. The evangelist is wont to set down certain, as it were, parentheses, as to causes, as to place, as to occasions, as to ends, as to effects, as to hindrances, of things, actions and speeches, and similar decisions, by means of which the subjects, which are in hand, may the more clearly be understood, Joh 1:28; Joh 1:45; Joh 3:24; Joh 4:8; Joh 6:4; Joh 7:5; Joh 7:39; Joh 8:20; Joh 8:27; Joh 9:14; Joh 9:22; Joh 10:22-23; Joh 11:13; Joh 11:30; Joh 12:33.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 1:24
Joh 1:24
And they had been sent from the Pharisees.-The Pharisees were the most zealous and watchful of the religious parties of the Jews.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
were of: Joh 3:1, Joh 3:2, Joh 7:47-49, Mat 23:13-15, Mat 23:26, Luk 7:30, Luk 11:39-44, Luk 11:53, Luk 16:14, Act 23:8, Act 26:5, Phi 3:5, Phi 3:6
Joh 1:25
Why: Mat 21:23, Act 4:5-7, Act 5:28
that Christ: Joh 1:20-22, Dan 9:24-26
Reciprocal: Mat 3:7 – the Pharisees
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
4
The Pharisees were a prominent sect of the Jews in the time of Christ, and they had been so for several years before. They were very formal, and made great pretensions to righteousness. For a more extended description of them, with the Saddu-cees, see the notes at Mat 16:12.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 1:24. And some from among the Pharisees had been sent. We cannot doubt that these words are introduced to lead on to the following statement, rather than to give completeness to the account of the preceding verses. It is not necessary, however, to think of a second and entirely new deputation. The persons now introduced may have formed part of the first body of questioners. But the point of special interest to them is that which meets us in Joh 1:25, rather than that already spoken of, They were Pharisees, and the Pharisees considered themselves the guardians of the ordinances of religious worship amongst their countrymen. Hence the significance of the statements in Joh 4:1, Joh 9:13-15, Joh 12:42; and also of the question which is now addressed to the Baptist. That question does not necessarily indicate a hostile bearing towards him; nor during the earlier part of the life of Jesus do the Pharisees in general appear to have opposed the Saviour in the same manner as the Jews (comp. on Joh 3:1, Joh 7:32).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Joh 1:24-28. They which were sent were of the Pharisees Who were peculiarly tenacious of old customs, and jealous of any innovations, (except those brought in by their own scribes,) unless the innovator had unquestionable proofs of divine authority. Add to this, the decisions of the Pharisees were held by the common people as infallible. And, as their sect had declared that only proselytes were to be baptized, on this account also they found fault with John for baptizing; saying, Why baptizest thou then Without any commission from the sanhedrim; and not only heathen, (who were always baptized before they were admitted to circumcision,) but Jews also? if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, &c. The Jews, it seems, had conceived an opinion that they were all to be baptized when the Messiah came, either by himself, or by some of his retinue, because it was said, (Zec 13:1,) In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David, &c., for sin and for uncleanness. They thought that Johns altering, in this manner, their institutions, was an exercise of authority which, by his own confession, did not belong to him. John answered, I baptize you with water To prepare you for the Messiah; I call you to repentance and amendment of life, and admit the penitent to my baptism, to represent to you that reformation of conduct and purity of heart which are requisite, in order to the reception of him. Hereby also John showed, that Jews as well as Gentiles must be proselytes to Christ; and that the former, as well as the latter, stood in need of being washed from their sins. I baptize you: but observe, it is with water only, which cannot cleanse you from your sins, as the washing predicted by Zechariah will do. But there standeth one among you, &c. That more efficacious baptism will be dispensed unto you by the Messiah, who is at present among you, though you do not know him, because he has not manifested himself. He coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoes, &c. Besides, in dignity the Messiah is infinitely my superior, for I am not worthy to be his servant, or to do him the meanest offices. These things were done in Bethabara, where John was baptizing Consequently, in the presence of a great multitude of people. The word, Bethabara, signifies, the house of passage. It lay near that part of the river which was miraculously dried up, that the Israelites, under the command of Joshua, might pass over into Canaan. See Jos 3:6, and Jdg 12:6.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Ver. 24. And those who were sent were of the Pharisees.
We translate according to the T. R., which is in conformity with the majority of the Mjj., with the Mnn., and with the greater part of the Vss. According to this reading, the participle , sent, is defined by the article , the; it is the subject of the sentence. The design of this remark added here by John is easily understood; it is to explain the question which is to follow. John likes to supply in this way, as a narrative progresses, the circumstances, omitted at first, which serve gradually to explain it; comp. Joh 1:41; Joh 1:45; Joh 4:30; Joh 9:14; Joh 11:5; Joh 11:18; Joh 13:23, etc. The Pharisees were the ultra conservatives in Israel; no one could have been shocked more than they by the innovation which John the Baptist had taken it upon himself to make in introducing baptism. Lustrations undoubtedly formed a part of the Jewish worship. It is even maintained that the pagan proselytes were subjected to a complete bath, on occasion of their passing over to Judaism. But the application of this symbol of entire pollution to the members of the theocratic people was so strange an innovation, that it must have awakened in the highest degree the susceptibility of the authorities who were guardians of the rites, and very particularly that of the party most attached to tradition. The Pharisaic element also was the main one in the deputation which the Sanhedrim had chosen.
We see how skillfully the plan of the examination had been laid; first of all, the question relative to the mission; then, that which concerned the rite; for the latter depended on the former. Nothing can be more simple than the course of the narrative, as thus understood. This mode of explaining the intention of the remark in Joh 1:24 appears to me more natural than that of Weiss and Keil, according to which John would thereby characterize the spirit of unbelief which animated the interrogators of the Baptist. The fact of their unbelief not being noticed in the narrative, did not demand explanation. Opposed to the reading of the T. R. there is another supported by the Alexandrian authorities and by Origen, and adopted by Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort, which rejects the article before ; the meaning is: and they had been sent from the Pharisees, or, as Origen understood it: and there were persons sent (come) from the Pharisees, as if the question were of another deputation than that of Joh 1:19. Neither the one nor the other of these meanings is possible. For the Pharisees did not form an officially constituted body, from which a proceeding like this which is here spoken of could have started. The Alexandrian reading is, therefore, indefensible, as, in this instance, Weiss and Keil themselves acknowledge. It is, probably, as is so frequently the case, an arbitrary correction by Origen, to serve his false interpretation of this whole passage, from the end of the Prologue. Weiss and Keil see here a mere case of negligence of a copyist arising from the preceding , in which the was lost. But how many similar errors should we not have, in that case, in the New Testament!
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
1:24 {12} And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
(12) Christ is the author of baptism, and not John: and therefore the authority of this does not come from John, who is the minister, but wholly from Christ the Lord.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The NASB translators understood this verse to be parenthetical describing the authorities who had sent the delegation that had been questioning John. The NIV translators interpreted it as identifying some of John’s questioners. Probably the NIV is correct here. It would be unusual for the writer to interrupt the narrative flow with this relatively insignificant detail, but for him to identify some of John’s examiners as Pharisees makes sense. The Pharisees were the strict interpreters of the Jewish laws, and John seemed close to violating these. [Note: See Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1:308-35, for an extended discussion of the differences between the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes.]