And they that were sent, were of the Pharisees.

“(in Joan. tom. vi. c. 13) The questions of the priests and Levites being answered, another mission comes from the Pharisees: And they that were sent were of the Pharisees. So far as it is allowable to form a conjecture from the discourse itself here, I should say that it was the third occasion of John’s giving his witness. Observe the mildness of the former question, so befitting the priestly and levitical character, Who art thou? There is nothing arrogant or disrespectful, but only what becomes true ministers of God. The Pharisees however, being a sectarian body, as their name implies, address the Baptist in an importunate and contumelious way. And they said, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, neither Elias, neither that Prophet? not caring about information, but only wishing to prevent him baptizing. Yet the very next thing they did, was to come to John’s baptism. The solution of this is, that they came not in faith, but hypocritically, because they feared the people.”

“(in loc.) Or it was, that our Lord was in the midst of the Pharisees; and they not knowing Him. For they thought that they knew the Scriptures, and therefore, inasmuch as our Lord was pointed out there, He was in the midst of them, i. e. in their hearts. But they knew Him not, inasmuch as they understood not the Scriptures. Or take another interpretation. He was in the midst of them, as mediator between God and man, wishing to bring them, the Pharisees, to God. But they knew Him not.”

“Above, John bore witness to Christ when questioned; here, however, he bears another witness to Christ of his own accord. And first indeed he offers the testimony itself; second, he confirms the testimony that has been given, there, "and John gave testimony." Now concerning the first, first the circumstances of the testimony are described; second, the testimony itself is set down, there, "behold the Lamb of God"; third, the suspicion regarding the witness is excluded, there, "and I knew him not." Now the circumstances are described. One indeed is on the part of the time. Whence he says, "the next day": in which indeed John's constancy is commended, because not on one day, not only once, but on many days and many times he bore witness to Christ. Psalm 144:2: "Every single day I will bless you." His progress too is commended: for one day ought not to succeed to us just like another; but the one that follows ought to be another, that is, better; according to that of Psalm 83:8: "They shall go from power to power." Another circumstance is set down on the part of the manner of testifying, because "John saw Jesus": in which certitude is intimated. For testimony from sight is most certain. And another circumstance is set down on the part of him to whom the testimony is borne. Whence he says, "Jesus coming to him," namely from Galilee, as is said in Matthew 3:13: "Jesus came from Galilee." Yet this is not to be understood of the coming by which he came to the Baptism, of which Matthew there speaks, but of another coming by which, already baptized and having tarried some while around the Jordan, he came to John—otherwise he would not have said: "he upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, this is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit. And I saw," and so on. Therefore he had already seen him, and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove, etc., as he says below. Now one cause of this coming of Christ to John after the Baptism was that John's testimony might be made certain. For John had said of Christ: "he it is who is to come after me": for someone might err in the knowledge of the one to come, since he was present; he came to John, to be pointed out by him with his finger, John saying, "behold the Lamb of God," and so on. Another reason was that he might exclude error. For someone might believe that Christ, the first time, when he came to the Baptism, came to John as one to be cleansed from sins. Therefore Christ, in order to exclude this, came also to him after the Baptism. Whence John pointedly says, "behold he who takes away." He committed no sin, but he came to take away sin. He came also that he might furnish an example of humility: because, as is said in Ecclesiasticus 3:20, "the greater you are, humble yourself in all things." And it should be noted that, just as when Christ was already conceived, when the Virgin Mother went up into the hill country with haste to visit Elizabeth the mother of John, John existing in his mother's womb, and not able to speak, showing reverence and dancing for joy to Christ, leaped in the womb; so also now, when Christ out of humility comes to him, he offers testimony and reverence, and breaks forth into a voice, saying, "behold the Lamb of God," and so on. Here John's testimony is set down: in which indeed he shows the power of Christ, and his dignity, there, "this is he of whom I said." He shows the power in two ways. First by proposing the figure; second by expounding it, there, "behold he who takes away the sins of the world." Concerning the first it should be known that, as Origen says, in the old law they were accustomed to offer five animals in the temple: three of the land animals, namely the calf, the goat, and the sheep—but of the sheep, the ram, the ewe, and the lamb; and of the birds two, namely the turtledove and the dove: all of which indeed were prefigurative of the true sacrifice, which is Christ, who "offered himself an oblation to God," as is said in Ephesians 5:2. Why then, when the Baptist bore witness to Christ, did he name the lamb especially? The reason for this is that, as is said in Numbers 28:3ff., although other sacrifices were made in the temple at other times, yet one was daily, in which continually one lamb was offered in the morning and another in the evening; and this was never changed, but was observed as the principal one, while the others were as it were an addition. And therefore by the lamb, which was the principal sacrifice, is signified Christ, who is the principal sacrifice. For although all the saints who have suffered for the faith of Christ are of profit for the salvation of the faithful, yet they do not have this except inasmuch as they are immolated upon the oblation of the lamb, as it were an oblation added to the principal sacrifice. It is offered indeed in the morning and in the evening, because through Christ the access lies open to contemplating and enjoying the intelligible things of the divine, which pertains to morning knowledge; and we are instructed how to use earthly things without defilement, which pertains to evening knowledge. And therefore he says: "behold the Lamb of God," etc., that is, the one signified by the lamb. And he says "of God," because in Christ there are two natures, namely the human and the divine. And that this sacrifice should be powerful for cleansing and sanctifying from sins, it has from the power of the divinity, inasmuch namely as "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself," 2 Corinthians 5:19. Or it is called "the Lamb of God," as it were offered by God, namely by Christ himself, who is God; just as it is called the oblation of a man, which a man offers. Or it is called "the Lamb of God," namely of the Father: because he himself provided for man an oblation to be offered for sins sufficient, which man cannot have of himself. Whence in Genesis 22:7, when Isaac asked of Abraham: "where is the victim of the holocaust?" he answered: "God will provide himself a victim for the holocaust." Romans 8:32: "God spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all." Now Christ is called a lamb, first on account of purity; Exodus 12:5: "it shall be a lamb of a year old," etc.; 1 Peter 1:18: "you were not redeemed with corruptible things, gold or silver." Second on account of meekness; Isaiah 53:7: "he was dumb as a lamb before its shearer." Third on account of fruit, Proverbs 27:26: "the lambs are for your clothing." And this as regards clothing, according to that of Romans 13:14: "put on the Lord Jesus Christ." And as regards food, below 6:52: "my flesh is for the life of the world." And therefore Isaiah said, 16:1: "send forth, O Lord, the lamb, the ruler of the earth." Consequently he expounds the proposed figure when he says, "who takes away the sins of the world," that is, removes; which in the law could not be removed either by the lamb or by other sacrifices, because, as is said in Hebrews 10:6: "it is impossible that sins should be taken away by the blood of bulls and goats." This blood "takes away," that is, removes, "the sins of the world." Hosea, last chapter, 3: "he takes away all iniquity." Or "takes away," that is, takes upon himself, "the sins of the whole world"; because, as is said in 1 Peter 2:24, "who bore our sins in his body." Isaiah 53:4: "he himself bore our sorrows, and carried our languors." Now he says, according to the Gloss, "sin," and not "sins," in order to show in a universal manner that he took away the whole genus of sin; 1 John 2:2: "he is the propitiation for our sins." Or because he died for one sin, namely original; Romans 5:12: "by one man sin entered into the world," and so on. Above, the Baptist bore witness to Christ as regards his power; here, however, he bears witness as regards his dignity, comparing him to himself in a threefold way. And first as regards the office and order of preaching; whence he says, "this," namely the lamb, pointing him out with his finger, "is he of whom I said," namely in his absence, "after me there comes a man," to preach and to baptize, "who comes after me" by being born. Now Christ is called "a man" by reason of perfect age: because when he began to teach after the Baptism, he was already of perfect age; Luke 3:23: "Jesus was beginning to be about thirty years old." Likewise, by reason of the perfection of all the virtues which were in him; Isaiah 4:1: "seven women," that is, virtues, "shall take hold of one man," namely the perfect Christ. Zechariah 6:12: "behold a man, the Orient is his name": because he himself is the origin of all the virtues in others. Likewise, by reason of espousal; because he himself is the spouse of the Church; Hosea 2:16: "you shall call me husband," etc.; 2 Corinthians 11:2: "I have espoused you to one husband." Second, as regards the order of dignity, when he says, "who is made before me." As if to say: although he came after me to preach, yet he is made before me, that is, set above me, in dignity. Canticle 2:8: "behold he comes leaping upon the mountains, leaping over the hills." One hill was John the Baptist, over whom Christ leaped: because, as is said below 3:30: "I must decrease, but he must increase." Third, as regards the order of duration, when he says, "because he was before me." As if to say: it is no wonder if he is preferred to me in dignity, because, even if he is later in time, yet he is prior in eternity, "because he was before me." Now from this a twofold error is destroyed. The error of Arius: because he does not say "he was made before me" as though he were a creature, but "he was before me," from eternity before every creature; Proverbs 8:25: "before all the hills the Lord begot me." Likewise the error of Paul of Samosata: because he said "he was before me," in order to show that he had not taken his beginning from Mary. For if he had taken the principle of his being from the Virgin, he would surely not have existed before his precursor, who preceded Christ by six months according to human generation. Consequently, when he says, "and I knew him not," he excludes a false suspicion from his testimony. For someone might say that John bore witness to Christ on account of an affection of special familiarity which he had toward him; and therefore, excluding this, John says, "I knew him not": for John from his childhood dwelt in the desert. Now although many miracles were wrought at the nativity of Christ, for instance concerning the Magi and the star, and things of this kind, yet they were not known to John: both because he was an infant according to age, and because, withdrawing to the desert, he did not have familiarity with Christ. But in the intervening time from the nativity until the Baptism, Christ worked no miracle; but he was conformed in his manner of living to others, and his power existed unknown to all. And that in the intervening time he did not work miracles up until thirty years is clear from what is said below 2:11: "this Jesus did as the beginning of signs," and so on. From which appears the falsity of the book on the infancy of the Savior. Now the reason he did not work miracles in the intervening time was so that the mystery of the circumcision and incarnation might not be thought to be a phantom, if he had not conducted himself in age like other infants. And therefore he deferred the demonstration of his knowledge and power to another time, in which other men are accustomed to flourish in knowledge and power. According to what is said in Luke 2:52: "and the child advanced in grace and wisdom"; not that he received a power and wisdom not previously had, since he was perfect in them from the instant of his conception, but because his power and wisdom became more known to men. Isaiah 45:15: "truly you are a hidden God." Therefore, then, John did not know him, because he had as yet seen no signs concerning him, nor had he become known to others through signs. Whence he adds, "but that he might be made manifest in Israel, therefore I came baptizing in water." As if to say: my whole ministry is for the manifestation. Above, "he was not the light, but that he might bear witness to the light." Now he says, "I came baptizing in water," to distinguish it from the Baptism of Christ. Because Christ baptized not in water only, but in the Spirit, conferring grace; whence the Baptism of John was only significative, not effective. Now the Baptism of John manifested Christ in three ways. First, namely, through John's preaching. For although John even without Baptism could have prepared the way of the Lord by preaching, and led the crowds to Christ, yet on account of the novelty of the office more flocked to him than if the preaching had been made without Baptism. Second, the Baptism of John was of profit on account of Christ's humility, which he demonstrated in willing to be baptized by John; Matthew 3:13: "Christ came to John to be baptized by him." In which indeed he furnished an example of humility, namely that no one, however great, should disdain to receive the sacraments from whomever is ordained for this. Third, because when Christ was baptized by John, the power of the Father was present in the voice, and the Holy Spirit in the dove, through which the power and dignity of Christ was more manifested. Luke 3:22: "and the voice of the Father thundered: this is my beloved Son." Consequently, when he says, "and John gave testimony," John himself confirms by the authority of God the great things which he testified concerning Christ, that he alone took away the sins of the whole world. And concerning this he does three things. First, he proposes the vision; second, he furnishes instruction concerning the understanding of the vision, there, "and I knew him not"; third, he shows his conception drawn from the vision itself, there, "and I saw, and I gave testimony." He proposes the vision indeed when he says, "I saw the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven." When indeed this was done, John the Evangelist does not report; but Matthew and Luke say this was done when Christ was baptized by John. And indeed it was fitting that the Holy Spirit should be present to the one baptized and to the Baptism. For it was fitting to the one baptized, because just as the Son, existing from the Father, manifests the Father—below 17:6: "Father, I have manifested your name," etc.—so also the Holy Spirit, existing from the Son, manifests the Son. Below 16:14: "he shall glorify me, because he shall receive of mine," and so on. And it was fitting to the Baptism, because the Baptism of Christ is the initiating and consecrating of our Baptism. Now our Baptism is consecrated by the invocation of the holy Trinity; Matthew, last chapter, 19: "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," and so on. What therefore we invoke in our Baptism was present at the Baptism of Christ, namely the Father in the voice, the Holy Spirit in the dove, the Son in the human nature. Now he says "descending," because since a descent has two termini, namely a beginning above and a terminus below, it is fitting to the Baptism as regards both. For there is a twofold spirit, one of the world and another of God. And the spirit of the world indeed is the love of the world, which is not from above, but ascends into man from what is lower, and makes him descend; but the Spirit of God, namely the love of God, descends from above to man, and makes him ascend. 1 Corinthians 2:12: "now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit of God." Because therefore that Spirit is from the things above, therefore he says "descending." Likewise also, because it is impossible for a creature to receive the goodness of God in such fullness as befits God, therefore the derivation of his goodness to us is as it were a certain descent; James 1:17: "every best gift, and every perfect gift is from above, descending from the Father of lights." But because the Holy Spirit cannot be seen in his own nature, as is said below 3:8: "the Spirit breathes where he wills, and you know not whence he comes, or whither he goes," and for the Spirit it is proper not to descend, but to ascend—Ezekiel 8:3: "the Spirit lifted me up," and so on—therefore consequently the Evangelist expounds the manner of the vision and of the descent, saying that this was not in the Spirit, that is, in nature, but in the appearance of a dove, in which he appeared: whence he says, "like a dove." And this indeed fittingly, so that the Son of God, made visible through flesh, might be manifested through the Holy Spirit in the visible appearance of a dove. This dove indeed was not assumed by the Holy Spirit into the unity of person, as the human nature was assumed by the Son of God. The reason for this is that the Son appeared not only as manifester, but as savior. And therefore, according to what Pope Leo says, it was necessary that he be God and man: God indeed, that he might bring the remedy; but man, that he might furnish the example. But the Holy Spirit appeared only for manifesting, for which it sufficed to assume a bodily appearance only for a certain signification. But whether that dove was a true animal, and whether pre-existing to the apparition: it should be known that it is reasonably said that it was a true dove. For the Holy Spirit came to manifest Christ, who, since he is truth, was not to be manifested except through truth. But as regards the second, it must be said that it did not pre-exist to the apparition; but then by divine power, without the intermingling of male and female, it was formed, just as the body of Christ too was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, not from male seed. And yet it was a true dove, because, as Augustine says in the book On the Christian Combat, for almighty God, who fashioned the whole of creation out of nothing, it was not difficult to fashion a true body of a dove without the ministry of other doves, just as it was not difficult to fashion a true body in the womb of the blessed Virgin without natural seed. Cyprian in the book On the Unity of the Church: "for this reason too the Holy Spirit is said to have appeared in a dove, because the dove is a simple and innocent animal, not bitter with gall, not fierce with bites, not violent with the tearing of talons: it loves human dwellings, it knows the fellowship of one house, when they beget they bring forth their young together, when they fly they cling to one another in turn, they pass their life in common intercourse, they recognize the concord of peace with the kiss of the mouth, they fulfill the law of unanimity in regard to all things." But why he appeared rather in a dove than in some other appearance, a reason is assigned in many ways. First indeed on account of the simplicity of the dove. For the dove is simple; Matthew 10:16: "be wise as serpents, and simple as doves." Now the Holy Spirit, because he makes one look to one, namely God, makes men simple; and therefore he appears in the appearance of a dove. And indeed, according to Augustine, he also appeared over the gathered disciples by fire, because some are simple, but lukewarm; while some are fervent, but malicious. Therefore, so that those sanctified by the Spirit might lack guile, the Spirit is shown in the appearance of a dove; and lest simplicity grow lukewarm through coldness, he is shown in fire. Second, on account of the unity of charity. For the dove is much fervent with love; Canticle 6:8: "one is my dove." Therefore, in order to show the unity of the Church, the Holy Spirit appears in the appearance of a dove. Nor let it move you that to the disciples divided tongues appeared, when the Holy Spirit sat upon each one of them, who both appears divided, according to the diverse offices of gifts, and yet unites through charity; and thus on account of the first he appeared in divided tongues, as is said in 1 Corinthians 12:4: "there are divisions of graces," in the appearance of a dove on account of the second. Third, on account of the groaning. For the dove has a groaning for its song; so the Holy Spirit "asks for us with unspeakable groanings," as is said in Romans 8:26, and Nahum 2:7: "her handmaids were marveling." Fourth, on account of fecundity. For the dove is a most fecund animal, and therefore, to designate the fecundity of spiritual grace in the Church, the Holy Spirit appeared in the appearance of a dove. This is what in Leviticus 5:7 the Lord commanded, to offer young doves. Fifth, on account of the dove's wariness. For it sits upon the streams of waters, looking in which it descries the flying falcon, and guards itself against it; Canticle 5:12: "your eyes are as doves," and so on. Whence, because in Baptism is our safeguarding and defense, fittingly the Holy Spirit appeared in the appearance of a dove. It corresponds, therefore, to the figure of the old testament. For just as the dove, carrying the branch of a green olive, showed the sign of God's clemency to those who had survived from the waters of the deluge; so also the Holy Spirit, coming in Baptism in the appearance of a dove, shows the sign of divine clemency, which both remits sins to the baptized and confers grace. Now he says "remaining upon him," because in remaining rest is designated. And that the Holy Spirit does not rest upon someone happens from a twofold cause. One is from sin. For all other men, besides Christ, are either wounded by the wound of mortal sin, through which the Holy Spirit is put to flight, or are darkened by the stain of venial sin, through which some operation of the Holy Spirit is impeded. But in Christ there was neither mortal, nor venial, nor original sin: whence neither in him was the Holy Spirit disquieted; but "remained upon him," that is, rested. The other cause: because as regards the graces freely given, the power of operating is not always present to the other saints. Just as the power of working miracles is not always present to the saints, nor the spirit of prophecy to the prophets. But Christ always had the power for every operation of virtues and graces: and therefore, to designate this, "he remained upon him." Whence this was a proper sign for recognizing Christ, as is said in the Gloss on Isaiah 11:2: "the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him." Which is to be understood of Christ, inasmuch as he is man, according to which he is less than the Father and the Holy Spirit. Consequently, when he says, "and I knew him not," he instructs concerning the understanding of the aforesaid vision. For certain heretics, namely the Ebionites, said that Christ, from the beginning of his nativity, was neither Christ nor the Son of God, but from that time he began to be the Son of God and Christ when in the Baptism he was anointed with the oil of the Holy Spirit. But this is false, because in the very hour of the nativity the Angel said to the shepherds, Luke 2:11: "this day is born to you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David." Therefore, lest anyone should believe that the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ in the Baptism as though Christ anew needed the Spirit for his own sanctification, therefore the Baptist shows the cause of his descent, saying that he did not descend on account of Christ's own necessity, but on account of us, namely so that his grace might be manifested to us. And therefore he says, "I knew him not. But that he might be made manifest in Israel, therefore I came baptizing in water." But here a question arises. For he says, "he who sent me to baptize," etc.—if it be said that the Father sent him, it is true; likewise if it be said that the Son, it is more manifest, since it may be said that both the Father and the Son sent him, because John is not of those of whom Jeremiah 23:21 says: "I did not send them, and they ran." How then does he say, "I knew him not," if the Son sent him? If it be said that although he knew him according to the divinity, yet he did not know him according to the humanity, except after he saw the Spirit descending upon him, on the contrary: for the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ when he was baptized. But John knew Christ before he was baptized, otherwise he would not have said, "I ought to be baptized by you, and you come to me?" It must therefore be said that this question can be answered in three ways. In one way, according to Chrysostom, so that it be referred to the knowledge of familiarity, so that the sense is "I knew him not," namely familiarly. And if it be objected that John says, "I ought to be baptized by you," etc., it is said that these two are to be referred to different times, so that this which he says, "I knew him not," be referred to the time long before the Baptism, in which he was not yet familiar with Christ; while this which he says, "I ought to be baptized by you," be referred to that time in which Christ was baptized, when, now on account of his frequent visitation, Christ was familiar. In another way, according to Jerome, it must be said that Christ was the Son of God and the Savior of the world, and this indeed John knew; but he did not know him as the Savior of the world through Baptism: and therefore he added this which he did not know, namely that "this is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit." But it is better to say, according to Augustine, that he knew something and did not know something, and he added this which he did not know, namely that the power of baptizing, which he was able to communicate to his faithful ones, he retained to himself alone. And this is what he says, "he who sent me to baptize in water (...) this is he," namely singularly and alone, "who baptizes in the Holy Spirit," and no other: because he retained this power to himself alone. Now it should be noted that a threefold power of Christ is regarded in Baptism. One is of efficiency, by which he cleanses interiorly the soul from the stain of sin; which power indeed Christ has inasmuch as he is God, but not inasmuch as he is man; and this power cannot be communicated to any other. Another power is of ministry, which indeed he communicated to the faithful; Matthew, last chapter, 19: "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." And therefore priests, as ministers, have the power of baptizing; but Christ, inasmuch as he is man, is called a minister, as the Apostle says—but nevertheless he is the head of all the ministers of the Church. And as regards this he singularly has the power of excellence in the sacraments: which excellence indeed appears in four things. First in the institution of the sacraments: because no mere man, nor even the whole Church, could institute the sacraments, or change the sacraments, or dispense from the sacraments. For the sacraments confer invisible grace from their institution; but to confer grace belongs to God alone: and therefore only he who is true God can institute the sacraments. The second is as regards the efficacy of Christ's merit: for from the merit of Christ's passion the sacraments have their power; Romans 6:3: "whoever of us are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death." The third is because Christ can confer the effect of Baptism without the sacrament: which belongs to Christ alone. Fourth, because at one time Baptism was conferred by the invocation of the name of Christ; but now it is not so done. Which four things indeed he communicated to none of men; although he could have communicated some of them, for instance that Baptism should be conferred in the name of Peter, or of some other, and perhaps some of the others. But this was not done, lest a schism should be made in the Church, if the baptized should place their hope in those into whose naming they were baptized. And therefore John learned, through the fact that the Holy Spirit descended upon him, that Christ alone is he who baptizes interiorly by his own power. And perhaps it could be said that when he said, "I ought to be baptized by you," etc., he knew him through internal revelation; but when he saw the Holy Spirit descending upon him, he knew him through the manifestation of an exterior sign. And therefore he touches upon both modes of knowledge. The first, when he says, "he who sent me to baptize, he said to me," that is, revealed interiorly. The second, when he added, "he upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending (...) this is he who baptizes." Consequently he shows what the Baptist understood from this vision, namely that Christ was the Son of God; and this is what he says, "and I saw," namely the Spirit descending upon him, "and I gave testimony, that this," namely Christ, "is the Son of God," namely true and natural. For the adoptive sons of the Father were made to the likeness of the natural Son of God; Romans 8:29: "whom he foreknew to be made conformable to the image of his Son." Therefore he ought to make sons of God who baptizes in the Holy Spirit, through whom sons are adopted; Romans 8:15: "for you have not received the spirit of servitude (...) but the spirit of adoption," and so on. Because therefore this one, namely Christ, is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit, therefore the Baptist rightly concludes that he is the true and pure Son of God. 1 John, last chapter, 20: "that we may be in his true Son," and so on. But if others saw the Holy Spirit descending upon him, why did they not believe? I answer, because they were not disposed for this, or perhaps because that vision was demonstrated to the Baptist alone.”

“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 Gill on Mat 3:7. . John 1:25 joh 1:25 joh 1:25 joh 1:25And they asked him, and said unto him,.... They put a question, by saying to him, why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? since he denied that he was the Messiah, or Elias that was to come before the Messiah, according to the expectation of the Jews, or that prophet, or a prophet, they demand by what authority he introduced a new rite and ordinance among them, which they had never been used to; for though there were divers washings or baptisms among them, enjoined by the law of Moses in certain cases, and others which obtained by tradition, as the immersion of themselves after they had been at market, and of cups, pots, brazen vessels, and tables, yet nothing of this kind that John administered: and as for the baptism of proselytes, it seems to be of a later date than this, and had no manner of likeness to it. The ordinance John administered was such, as they apprehended that no one ought to practise, unless he was the Messiah, or his forerunner, or some eminent prophet; they insist upon it therefore, that since he denied he was either of these, that he would show his credentials, and what commission he had from God to baptize; or they suggest he was liable to be called to an account by their sanhedrim, and be condemned as a false prophet, or an innovator in religious affairs. From hence it appears, that the Jews expected that baptism would be administered in the times of the Messiah, and his forerunner; but from whence they had this notion, it is not easy to say, whether from Zac 13:1 as Grotius, or from Eze 36:25 as Lightfoot; nor do they speak contemptibly of it, but rather consider it as a very solemn affair, to be performed only by great personages: and this may teach modern ones to think and speak more respectfully of this ordinance than they do, who have given themselves great liberties, and have treated it with much contempt and virulence; calling it by the names of uncleanness, abomination, filthy water, and a devoting of persons to Satan (z): likewise, it is clear from hence, that they expected that this ordinance would be first administered by some person of very great note, either some very famous prophet, as Elias, whom they looked for before the coming of the Messiah, or else the Messiah himself, and not by a common teacher, or any ordinary person; wherefore this rite, as performed by John, could have no likeness with any thing that was in common use among them: besides, it was expressly done in the name of the Messiah, Act 19:5 therefore they conclude he, or his forerunner, must be come; and that John must be one, or other of them, otherwise, why did he administer it? and it is also evident from hence, that no such practice had obtained before among them, or they would not have been alarmed at it, as they were; nor would they have troubled themselves to have sent after John, and inquire of him who he was, that should practise in this manner, (z) Vet. Nizzachon, p. 56, 62, 64, 70, 74, 77, 148, 191, 193.”