ee
influenced the evangelist himself, nor only because chronologically it came first, but because the Baptist was com- missioned to be the herald οἱ the Messiah. The Baptist’s testimony was of supreme value because of (1) his appointment to this function of identify- ing the Messiah, (2) his knowledge of Jesus, (3) his own holiness, (4) his dis- interestedness.—atrn, this which follows, is the testimony given on a special occasion ὅτε ἀπέστειλαν . . . Aeveiras, “‘when the Jews sent to him from Jeru- salem priests and Levites ’.—lovdaior
[o-nm], originally designating the
tribes of Judah and Benjamin which formed the separate kingdom of Judah, but after the exile denoting all Israelites. In this Gospel it is used with a hostile implication as the designation of the “entire theocratic community as summed up in its official heads and as historically fixed in an attitude of hostility to Christ’ (Whitelaw). Here ‘‘ the Jews” probably indicates the Sanhedrim, com- posed of priests, presbyters, and scribes. —iepeis καὶ Λευείτας, the higher and lower order of temple officials (Holtz- mann). Why were not scribes sent? Possibly because John’s father was him- self a priest. The priests were for the most part Sadducees, but John tells us this deputation was strong in Pharisees (ver. 24). Lampe says: ‘‘ Custodibus Templi incumbebat, Dominum Templi, cujus adventum exspectabant, nosse”’. They were sent ἵνα ἐρωτήσωσιν αὐτόν, ‘that they might interrogate him,” not captiously but for the sake of informa- tion. Lk. tells us (iii. 15) that the people were on the tiptoe of expectation, and were discussing whether John were not the Christ ; so it was time the Sanhedrim should make the inquiry. ‘‘ The judg- ment of the case of a false prophet is specially named in the Mishna as belong- ing to the council of the Seventy One”’ (Watkins). ‘ This incident gives a deep insight into the extraordinary religious life of the Jews—their unusual combina- tion of conservatism with progressive thought” (Reynolds’ F¥ohn the Baptist, Ρ. 365).---Σὺ τίς ef, “Who art thou?” Not, what is your name, or birth, but, what personage do you claim to be,
19—23
ἐγὼ 6 Χριστός.” σύ; Kai λέγει, “Οὐκ cit.”
κ 5)
ἀπεκρίθη, ‘Ov.
a ~ ( ς ~ / . 2. δῶμεν τοῖς πέµψασιν ἡμᾶς τί λέγεις περὶ σεαυτοῦ ;
~
“8 °Eya «φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ
1 Τ.Ε. in NAC3L; ειπαν in BC*D,
what place in the community do you aspire to?—with an implied reference to a possible claim on John’s part to be the Christ. This appears from John’s answer, ὡμολόγησεν καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσατο καὶ ὡμολόγησεν. Schoettgen says the form of the sentence is ‘‘ judaico more,” citing ‘‘ Jethro confessus, et non mentitus est”. Cf,, Rom..ix,.1, and) 1,.Tim.,1i,,.7 The iteration serves here to bring out the earnestness, almost horror, with which John disclaimed the ascription to him of such an honour. His high con- ception of the office emphasises his acknowledgment of Jesus.—é6tt, here, as commonly, ‘‘recitative,” serving the
purpose of our inverted commas or’
marks of quotation.—éyo οὐκ εἰμὶ 6 Χριστός, the reading adopted by Tisch. and W.H., bringing the emphasis on the “I”, ‘J am not the Christ,’’ but another is. The Τ.Ε. οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγὼ 6 Χριστός, by bringing the ἐγὼ and 6 Χριστός together, accentuates the in- congruity and the Baptist’s surprise at being mistaken for the Christ. This straightforward denial evokes another question (ver. 21), τί οὖν; which Weiss renders, “' What then art thou ?”’ Better ‘‘ what then ?”’ ‘‘ what then is the case ?”’ quid ergo, quid igitur }--"Ἠλείας εἶ σύ; If not the Christ Himself, the next possibility was that he was the fore- runner of the Messiah, according to Mal. iv. 5, ‘‘ Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord”. {Among the Fathers there seems to have been a belief that Elias would appear before the second Advent. Thus Tertullian (De anima, 50) says: ‘“ Trans- latus est Enoch et Elias, nec mors eorum reperta est, dilata scilicet. Caeterum