John 1:25

1:25-26 Jewish baptisms were ritual washings for becoming ceremonially pure following contact with impurity (Lev 8:6; Num 19:7). • John’s announcement of the Messiah’s arrival required that participants confess their sins and be baptized (Matt 3:6). Baptism later became the symbol of membership in Jesus’ kingdom (Acts 2:38; see also John 4:1-2).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Hereby we may prove that the Jews knew there should be some change in religion under Messiah.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Why baptizest thou, if not, &c.--Thinking he disclaimed any special connection with Messiah's kingdom, they demand his right to gather disciples by baptism.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 25. Why baptizest thou then?] Baptism was a very common ceremony among the Jews, who never received a proselyte into the full enjoyment of a Jew's privileges, till he was both baptized and circumcised. But such baptisms were never performed except by an ordinance of the Sanhedrin, or in the presence of three magistrates: besides, they never baptized any Jew or Jewess, nor even those who were the children of their proselytes; for, as all these were considered as born in the covenant, they had no need of baptism, which was used only as an introductory rite. Now, as John had, in this respect, altered the common custom so very essentially, admitting to his baptism the Jews in general, the Sanhedrin took it for granted that no man had authority to make such changes, unless especially commissioned from on high; and that only the prophet, or Elijah, or the Messiah himself; could have authority to act as John did. See the observations at the conclusion of Mark.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

25. Why then dost thou baptize? By laying down those three degrees, they appear to form a very conclusive argument: if thou art not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor a prophet; for it does not belong to every man to institute the practice of baptism. The Messiah was to be one who possessed all authority. Of Elijah who was to come, they had formed this opinion, that he would commence the restoration both of the royal authority and of the Church. The prophets of God, they readily grant, have a right to discharge the office committed to them. They conclude, therefore, that for John to baptize is an unlawful novelty, since he has received from God no public station. But they are wrong in not acknowledging him to be that Elijah who is mentioned by Malachi 4:5; though he denies that he is that Elijah of whom they foolishly dreamed.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(25) Why baptizest thou then?—Baptism, which was certainly one of the initiatory rites of proselytes in the second or third century A.D., was probably so before the work of the Baptist. It is not baptism, therefore, which is strange to the questioners, but the fact that he places Jews and even Pharisees (Mat_3:7) in an analogous position to that of proselytes, and makes them to pass through a rite which marks them out as impure, and needing to be cleansed before they enter “the kingdom of heaven.” By what authority does he these things? They had interpreted such passages as Eze_36:25 ff. to mean that Baptism should be one of the marks of Messiah’s work. None less than the Christ, or Elias, or “the prophet” could enact a rite like this. John is assuming their power, and yet is not one of them.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

25. Why baptizest thou then?] ‘What right have you to treat Jews as if they were proselytes and make them submit to a rite which implies that they are impure?’ Had they forgotten Zec_13:1; Eze_36:25?

be not that Christ, &c.] Better, art not the Christ, nor yet Elijah, nor yet the Prophet. See on Joh_1:21.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

Ver. 25. Why baptizest thou then?] Why dost thou innovate anything in the rites of religion? A change they looked for under the Messiah, and had learned it out of Jer 31:31-34. But this testimony brought by John Baptist out of Isaiah, to prove his own calling, either they did not or would not understand; nor yet do they seek to be better informed by him.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Why baptizest thou then ... - Baptism on receiving a proselyte from “paganism” was common before the time of John, but it was not customary to baptize a “Jew.” John had changed the custom. He baptized “all,” and they were desirous of knowing by what authority he made such a change in the religious customs of the nation. They presumed, from the fact that he introduced that change, that he claimed to be a prophet or the Christ. They supposed that no one would attempt it without “pretending,” at least, authority from heaven. As he disclaimed the character of Christ and of the prophet Elijah, they asked whence he derived his authority. As he had just before applied to himself a prediction that they all considered as belonging to the fore runner of Christ, they “might” have understood “why” he did it; but they were blind, and manifested, as all sinners do, a remarkable slowness in understanding the plainest truths in religion.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The Pharisees themselves would allow the Messiah, or Elias, or a prophet, to make any additions to or alterations in the worship of God, but none else: hence it is they ask, by what authority he baptized, if he were none of these? From whence we may learn, that although they might have some umbrage of that baptismal washing which was under the gospel, to commence into a sacrament, or federal sign, in the washing of their proselytes, or of Jewish children when they were circumcised; yet John’s action was looked upon as new, who baptized adult Jews: now the care of the sanhedrim was to keep the worship of God incorrupt, and the Pharisees amongst them had a particular zeal in the case, especially so far as the traditions of the elders were concerned.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

And they asked him (put the question), and said to him, Why baptizest thou, then, if thou be notthe Christ, not Elijah, not the prophet? It would seem that, judging from such expressions as Eze_36:25, 26 and Zec_13:1, the Jews expected some renewal of ceremonial purification on a grand scale at the Messianic appearance, and John"s repudiation of every personal rank, which could, according to their view, justify him called for some explanation.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

They asked him, Why baptizest thou then? - Without any commission from the sanhedrim? And not only heathens (who were always baptized before they were admitted to circumcision) but Jews also?

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

25. Why baptizest thou then? If he were Christ, or Elias, or “that prophet,” they could understand why he should establish a new religious rite, but if none of these, why should he do so? Their perplexity shows that the baptismal rite was new to them. There is no proof that Jewish proselyte baptism of Gentile converts existed at this period, save the assertion of the Talmud, written two or three centuries after this. Josephus, who wrote in the time of the apostles, is silent about it.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

25. τί οὖν βαπτίζεις. What right have you to treat Jews as if they were proselytes and make them submit to a rite which implies that they are impure? Comp. Zec 13:1. Βαπτίζω is the intensive form of βάπτω: βάπτω, ‘I dip,’ βαπτίζω, ‘I immerse:’ so ὁφλήμασι βεβαπτισμένος, ‘over head and ears in debt,’ Plut. Galb. xxi.

οὐκ εἶ ὁ Χριστός. Art not the Christ.

οὐδὲ Ἡλίας οὐδὲ ὁ πρ. Nor yet Elijah, nor yet the Prophet.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

25.] On οὐδὲ … οὐδέ, see note on ver. 13. This question shews probably that they did not interpret Isa 40:3 of any herald of the Messiah. They regarded baptism as a significant token of the approach of the Messianic Kingdom, and they asked, ‘Why baptizest thou, if thou art no forerunner of the Messiah?’

26,

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

25. τί οὖν βαπτίζεις; Hitherto, no hint has been given that the ministry of John the herald was one of baptism. It is assumed that all readers of the Gospel will know that. The question, “Why are you baptizing?” is put to him by the Pharisees of the deputation from Jerusalem, who were the conservative guardians of orthodox practice.

The baptism of proselytes from heathenism was a recognised, if not a universal, practice in Jewry at this time. But why should Jews be baptized? And what authority had John to exercise this ministry? Baptism, that is a symbolic rite of purification, would indeed be a token of the approach of the Messianic kingdom; “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean” (Eze 36:25) were prophetic words (cf. Zec 13:1). But John had admitted that he was not Messiah; he was not even Elijah or “the prophet” (v. 21). His claim to be the Voice in the wilderness of Isa 40:3 did not satisfy the Pharisees as to his authority for exercising so novel and irregular a ministry as that of baptizing Jews seemed to be.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Ver. 25. “And they asked him and said unto him; why baptizest thou then, if thou art not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet.”

The strictest guardians of rites conceded, indeed, to the Messiah or to one of His forerunners the right of making innovations in the matter of observances; and if John had declared himself one of these personages, they would have contented themselves with asking for his credentials, and would have kept silence respecting his baptism, sufficiently legitimated by his mission. In fact, it seems to follow from this verse itself that, on the foundation of words such as those of Eze 36:25-26, and Zec 13:1, a great national lustration was expected as an inauguration of the kingdom of the Messiah. But John the Baptist having expressly declined the honor of being one of the expected prophets, the deputation had the right to say to him: “Why then dost thou baptize?” According to the reading of the T. R. nor, nor, the thought is this: “The supposition that John is the Christ is set aside; there remains, therefore, no other way of explaining his baptism except that he is either the one or the other of the two expected forerunners; now he declares that he is neither the one nor the other; why then...etc. This delicate sense of the disjunctive negative was not understood; hence, in our view, the Alexandrian reading οὐδέ, οὐδέ, nor even, which puts the three cases on a common level. The partisans of the Alexandrian text (Weiss, Keil, Westcott, etc.), judge otherwise. The position of John the Baptist, in presence of this question and after his previous answer, became a difficult one. His interrogators, indeed, had counted on this result.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.