morituri reservantur, ut Antichristum sanguine suo _ exstinguant.” Other references in Lampe.] JBut to this
question also John answers οὐκ eip(, because the Jews expected Elias in person, so that although our Lord spoke of the Baptist as Elias (Mt. xvii. 10-13), John could not admit that identity with- out misleading them. If people need
693
21. Καὶ ἠρώτησαν αὐτὸν, “Ti οὖν, “ Ἠλίας ef d Mal. iv. 5.
6 Ὁ προφήτης εἶ ov;” , x
22. Eirov! οὖν αὐτῷ, “Tis et; ἵνα * ἀπόκρισιν { xix. ο. Job
Kate Deut. viil. 18. XKXili. 3.
23. “Eon,
ἐρήμῳ, Εὐθύνατε τὴν ὁδὸν Kupiou-” ¢ te, xi. 3.
-4μν-
to question a great spiritual personality, replies in their own language will often mislead them. Another alternative pre- sented itself: 6 προφήτης et σύ; ‘art thou the prophet?” viz., the prophet promised in Deut. xviii. 15, ‘‘ The. Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, like unto me”’. Allusion is made to this prophet in four places in this Gospel, the present verse and ver. 25 of this chapter; also in vi. 14 and vii. 4ο. That the Jews did not see in this prophet the Messiah would appear from the present verse, and also from vii. 40: “' Some said, Of a truth this is the prophet ; others said, This is the Christ”. The Jews looked for ‘a faith- ful prophet’ (1 Macc. xiv. 41) who was to terminate the prophetic period and usher in the Messianic reign. But after Peter, as recorded in Acts iii. 22, applied the prophecy of Deut. to Christ, the Christian Church adopted this interpre- tation. The use of the prophecy by Christ Himself justified this. But the different interpretations thus introduced gave rise to some confusion, and as Light- foot points out, none but a Jew contem- porary with Christ could so clearly have held the distinction between the two in- terpretations. (See Deane’s Pseudepig., p. 121; Wendt’s Teaching of Fesus, E. Tr., i, 67; and on the relation of ‘‘the prophet”’ to Jeremiah, see Weber, p. 339.) To this question also John answered “No”; ‘quia Prophetis omnibus erat praestantior”’ (Lampe). This negation is explained by the affirmation of ver. 23. Thus baffled in all their suggestions the deputies ask John to give them some positive account of himself, that they might not go back to those who sent them without having accomplished the object of their mission. To this second τίς el; τί λέγεις περὶ σεαντοῦ; (νετ. 23) he replies in words made familiar by the Synoptists, ἐγώ gwvn βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ρήμῳ . . . ὁ προφήτης; John applies to himself the words of Is. xl. 3, blending the two clauses ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ῥὁδὸν Κυρίου and εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν into one: εὐθύνατε τὴν
694
καθὼς εἶπεν Ἡσαΐας ὁ προφήτης.”
ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ f.
24. Καὶ οἱ ! ἀπεσταλμένοι ἦσαν
ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων: 25. καὶ ἠρώτησαν αὐτὸν, καὶ εἶπον αὐτῶ, “Τί οὖν βαπτίζεις, εἰ σὺ οὐκ ef ὁ Χριστὸς, οὔτε Ἡλίας, οὔτε ὁ προφήτης ;” b Με, fii. 11. 26. ᾿Απεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰωάννης λέγων, ““᾿Εγὼ βαπτίζω 3 ἐν ὕδατι -
Lk. iii. 16. i Mt. xiv.24.' µέσος δὲ ὑμῶν ἕστηκεν," ὁ Α τατε constr., usually infin. or gen.
ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε.
27. αὐτός ἐστιν 6
ὀπίσω µου ἐρχόμενος, ὃς ἔμπροσθέν µου Ὑέγονεν: οὗ ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἄξιος J ἵνα λύσω αὐτοῦ τὸν ἵμάντα τοῦ ὑποδήματος.”
28. Ταῦτα ἐν
Βηθαβαρᾶ ® ἐγένετο πέραν τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου, ὅπου ἦν Ιωάννης βαπτίζων.
1 T.R. in ΝΕΡΑ20ΟΣ, etc.; without article in ν Α"Β0”. 2 T.R. in ACX, etc.; στηκει in BL, adopted by W.H.R. * βηθανια in N*ABC*EFG, etc., adopted by Tr.T.W.H.R.
ὁδὸν Κυρίου. By appropriating this pro- phetic description John identifies himself as the immediate precursor of the Messiah; and probably also hints that he himself is no personage worthy that inquiry should terminate on him, but only a voice. [Heracleon neatly graduates revelation, saying that the Saviour is 6 λόγος, John is φωνή, the whole pro- phetic order ἦχος, a mere noise; for which he is with some justice rebuked by Origen.] ‘‘ The desert,” a pathless, fruitless waste fitly symbolises the spiritual condition of the Messiah’s people. For the coming of their King preparation must be made, especially by such repentance as John preached. “If Israel repent but for one day, the Messiah will come.” Cf. Weber, p. 334.—Ver. 24. καὶ ἀπεσταλμένοι ἦσαν ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων. 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 follow- ing question (ver. 25): τί οὖν βαπτίζεις