John 1:19

John 1:19. And this is the witness of John, when the Jews sent unto him from Jerusalem priests and Levites to ask him, Who art thou? The preceding verses (John 1:1-18) are so strongly marked in character, and so distinctly constitute one coherent whole, that we cannot but place them in a section by themselves. And yet they do not form a distinct preface to the book (such, for example, as we find in Luke 1:1-4), for the first word of the present verse (with which the regular narrative commences) shows that this section must be connected with what goes before. It is possible that this connection is really very close. The words ‘this is the witness of John' do not necessarily mean ‘this witness which follows is the witness of John;' the Evangelist's ordinary usage in similar cases suggests that the sense intended is rather, ‘And of this kind confirmatory of the preceding statements is the witness,' etc. Such an interpretation best accounts for the use of the present tense, ‘this is ' (comp. John 1:15), standing in striking contrast to the past tenses which immediately follow; it also throws light on the remarkably emphatic words which form the first half of John 1:20. Thus viewed, the present section attaches itself to John 1:15; what is there given in a general form is now related with greater fulness, in connection with the circumstances of the history. The ‘witness' directly intended is that of John 1:19-27; but we must also include the very important testimony borne on the following day, especially that of John 1:33-34, which presents (in a different form) some of the leading truths of the Prologue. As in the earlier Gospels, the mission of Jesus is introduced by the Baptist; the peculiarity of John's narrative consists in this, that the Baptist's testimony is obtained in answer to a question asked by ‘the Jews,' who send a deputation to him 'from Jerusalem,' the centre of the theocracy.

In this mention of ‘the Jews' we meet for the first time with one of the most characteristic terms of the Fourth Gospel. In the other Gospels the expression occurs only fifteen or sixteen times, and twelve of these instances are examples of a single phrase, ‘King of the Jews,' and that phrase used by Gentiles. The remaining passages are Mark 7:3; Luke 7:3; Luke 23:51; and Matthew 28:15 (slightly different from the rest in the absence of the article). In this Gospel in addition to six examples of the title ‘King of the Jews,' used as in the other Gospels we find more than fifty passages in which the Evangelist himself (not quoting from any Gentile) speaks of ‘the Jews.' Had the author of this Gospel been a Gentile, this usage might have seemed very natural; but it is no less natural in the case of a writer who, though a Jew by birth, has long been severed from his countrymen through their rejection of his Lord. The leaders and representatives of the nation in this rejection of Jesus are those whom John usually designates as ‘the Jews.' When the other Gospels speak of opposition on the part of Pharisees, chief priests, elders, scribes, Sadducees, or lawyers, John who mentions none of these classes except Pharisees and chief priests, and these not very frequently) is wont to use this general term. The mass of the people, the led as contrasted with the leaders, he speaks of as ‘the multitude' or ‘the multitudes.' Hence in most of the passages in which we meet with ‘the Jews,' we must understand the party possessed of greatest influence in the nation, the representatives of Judaism, the leaders in opposition to Jesus. Even where the term is used in a wider sense, it does not simply designate the nation; when employed by the Evangelist himself, it almost always bears with it the impress of one thought that of general unfaithfulness, of a national depravation which culminated in the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus.

There is nothing to indicate that the deputation here spoken of was sent by the Sanhedrin; but it appears to have been formal and important, composed as it was of persons belonging to the two classes which, in the Old Testament, represent the service of the Temple (Jos 3:3; 2 Chronicles 30:27; Ezekiel 44:15). If we add to this the fact that, as appears from John 1:24, Pharisees also were present, the striking character of the scene before us will be manifest. On the one side is the Baptist, standing alone in the startling strangeness of his prophetic mission; on the other are all who either possessed or had assumed religious authority in Israel the Jews, the priests, the Levites, and the Pharisees. The question, ‘Who art thou?' has reference to the supposed personal claims of the Baptist. Might it not be that one who had so suddenly appeared in the wilderness, and who had produced so profound an effect upon all classes, was the very Messiah anxiously waited for at this time? Compare Luke 3:15.