요한복음 1:21 주석

The scope and design of this chapter is to confirm our faith in Christ as the eternal Son of God, and the true Messiah and Saviour of the world, that we may be brought to receive him, and rely upon him, as our Prophet, Priest, and King, and to give up ourselves to be ruled, and taught, and saved by him. In order to this, we have here, I. An account given of him by the inspired penman himself, fairly laying down, in the beginning, what he designed his whole book should be the proof of (Joh 1:1-5); and again (Joh 1:10-14); and again, (Joh 1:16-18). II. The testimony of John Baptist concerning him (Joh 1:6-9, and Joh 1:15); but most fully and particularly (v. 19-37). III. His own manifestation of himself to Andrew and Peter (Joh 1:38-42), to Philip and Nathanael (Joh 1:43-51).

John 1:1 joh 1:1 joh 1:1 joh 1:1In the beginning was the word,.... That this is said not of the written word, but of the essential word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, is clear, from all that is said from hence, to Joh 1:14 as that this word was in the beginning, was with God, and is God; from the creation of all things being ascribed to him, and his being said to be the life and light of men; from his coming into the world, and usage in it; from his bestowing the privilege of adoption on believers; and from his incarnation; and also there is a particular application of all this to Christ, Joh 1:15. And likewise from what this evangelist elsewhere says of him, when he calls him the word of life, and places him between the Father and the Holy Ghost; and speaks of the record of the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus, as the same thing; and represents him as a warrior and conqueror, Jo1 1:1. Moreover this appears to be spoken of Christ, from what other inspired writers have said of him, under the same character; as the Evangelist Luke, Luk 1:2, the Apostle Paul, Act 20:32 and the Apostle Peter, Pe2 3:5. And who is called the word, not as man; for as man he was not in the beginning with God, but became so in the fulness of time; nor is the man God; besides, as such, he is a creature, and not the Creator, nor is he the life and light of men; moreover, he was the word, before he was man, and therefore not as such: nor can any part of the human nature be so called; not the flesh, for the word was made flesh; nor his human soul, for self-subsistence, deity, eternity, and the creation of all things, can never be ascribed to that; but he is the word as the Son of God, as is evident from what is here attributed to him, and from the word being said to be so, as in Joh 1:14 and from those places, where the word is explained by the Son, compare Jo1 5:5. And is so called from his nature, being begotten of the Father; for as the word, whether silent or expressed, is the birth of the mind, the image of it, equal to it, and distinct from it; so Christ is the only begotten of the Father, the express image of his person, in all things equal to him, and a distinct person from him: and he may be so called, from some action, or actions, said of him, or ascribed to him; as that he spoke for, and on the behalf of the elect of God, in the eternal council and covenant of grace and peace; and spoke all things out of nothing, in creation; for with regard to those words so often mentioned in the history of the creation, and God said, may Jehovah the Son be called the word; also he was spoken of as the promised Messiah, throughout the whole Old Testament dispensation; and is the interpreter of his Father's mind, as he was in Eden's garden, as well as in the days of his flesh; and now speaks in heaven for the saints. The phrase, , "the word of the Lord", so frequently used by the Targumists, is well known: and it is to be observed, that the same things which John here says of the word, they say likewise, as will be observed on the several clauses; from whence it is more likely, that John should take this phrase, since the paraphrases of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel were written before his time, than that he should borrow it from the writings of Plato, or his followers, as some have thought; with whose philosophy, Ebion and Cerinthus are said to be acquainted; wherefore John, the more easily to gain upon them, uses this phrase, when that of the Son of God would have been disagreeable to them: that there is some likeness between the Evangelist John and Plato in their sentiments concerning the word, will not be denied. Amelius (f), a Platonic philosopher, who lived after the times of John, manifestly refers to these words of his, in agreement with his master's doctrine: his words are these, "and this was truly "Logos", or the word, by whom always existing, the things that are made, were made, as also Heraclitus thought; and who, likewise that Barbarian (meaning the Evangelist John) reckons was in the order and dignity of the beginning, constituted with God, and was God, by whom all things are entirely made; in whom, whatsoever is made, lives, and has life, and being; and who entered into bodies, and was clothed with flesh, and appeared a man; so notwithstanding, that he showed forth the majesty of his nature; and after his dissolution, he was again deified, and was God, as he was before he descended into a body, flesh and man. In which words it is easy to observe plain traces of what the evangelist says in the first four verses, and in the fourteenth verse of this chapter; yet it is much more probable, that Plato had his notion of the Logos, or word, out of the writings of the Old Testament, than that John should take this phrase, or what he says concerning the word, from him; since it is a matter of fact not disputed, that Plato went into Egypt to get knowledge: not only Clemens Alexandrinus a Christian writer says, that he was a philosopher of the Hebrews (g), and understood prophecy (h), and stirred up the fire of the Hebrew philosophy (i); but it is affirmed by Heathen writers, that he went into Egypt to learn of the priests (k), and to understand the rites of the prophets (l); and Aristobulus, a Jew, affirms (m), he studied their law; and Numenius, a Pythagoric philosopher (n), charges him with stealing what he wrote, concerning God and the world, out of the books of Moses; and used to say to him, what is Plato, but Moses "Atticising?" or Moses speaking Greek: and Eusebius (o), an ancient Christian writer, points at the very places, from whence Plato took his hints: wherefore it is more probable, that the evangelist received this phrase of the word, as a divine person, from the Targums, where there is such frequent mention made of it; or however, there is a very great agreement between what he and these ancient writings of the Jews say of the word, as will be hereafter shown. Moreover, the phrase is frequently used in like manner, in the writings of Philo the Jew; from whence it is manifest, that the name was well known to the Jews, and may be the reason of the evangelist's using it. This word, he says, was in the beginning; by which is meant, not the Father of Christ; for he is never called the beginning, but the Son only; and was he, he must be such a beginning as is without one; nor can he be said to be so, with respect to the Son or Spirit, who are as eternal as himself; only with respect to the creatures, of whom he is the author and efficient cause: Christ is indeed in the Father, and the Father in him, but this cannot be meant here; nor is the beginning of the Gospel of Christ, by the preaching of John the Baptist, intended here: John's ministry was an evangelical one, and the Gospel was more clearly preached by him, and after him, by Christ and his apostles, than before; but it did not then begin; it was preached before by the angel to the shepherds, at the birth of Christ; and before that, by the prophets under the former dispensation, as by Isaiah, and others; it was preached before unto Abraham, and to our first parents, in the garden of Eden: nor did Christ begin to be, when John began to preach; for John's preaching and baptism were for the manifestation of him: yea, Christ existed as man, before John began to preach; and though he was born after him as man, yet as the Word and Son of God, he existed before John was born; he was in being in the times of the prophets, which were before John; and in the times of Moses, and before Abraham, and in the days of Noah: but by the beginning is here meant, the beginning of the world, or the creation of all things; and which is expressive of the eternity of Christ, he was in the beginning, as the Maker of all creatures, and therefore must be before them all: and it is to be observed, that it is said of him, that in the beginning he was; not made, as the heavens and earth, and the things in them were; nor was he merely in the purpose and predestination of God, but really existed as a divine person, as he did from all eternity; as appears from his being set up in office from everlasting; from all the elect being chosen in him, and given to him before the foundation of the world; from the covenant of grace, which is from eternity, being made with him; and from the blessings and promises of grace, being as early put into his hands; and from his nature as God, and his relation to his Father: so Philo the Jew often calls the Logos, or word, the eternal word, the most ancient word, and more ancient than any thing that is made (p). The eternity of the Messiah is acknowledged by the ancient Jews: Mic 5:2 is a full proof of it; which by them (q) is thus paraphrased, "out of thee, before me, shall come forth the Messiah, that he may exercise dominion over Israel; whose name is said from eternity, from the days of old. Jarchi upon it only mentions Psa 72:17 which is rendered by the Targum on the place, before the sun his name was prepared; it may be translated, "before the sun his name was Yinnon"; that is, the Son, namely the Son of God; and Aben Ezra interprets it, , "he shall be called the son"; and to this agrees what the Talmudisis say (r), that the name of the Messiah was before the world was created; in proof of which they produce the same passage, And the word was with God; not with men or angels; for he was before either of these; but with God, not essentially, but personally considered; with God his Father: not in the Socinian sense, that he was only known to him, and to no other before the ministry of John the Baptist; for he was known and spoken of by the angel Gabriel before; and was known to Mary and to Joseph; and to Zacharias and Elisabeth; to the shepherds, and to the wise men; to Simeon and Anna, who saw him in the temple; and to the prophets and patriarchs in all ages, from the beginning of the world: but this phrase denotes the existence of the word with the Father, his relation and nearness to him, his equality with him, and particularly the distinction of his person from him, as well as his eternal being with him; for he was always with him, and is, and ever will be; he was with him in the council and covenant of grace, and in the creation of the universe, and is with him in the providential government of the world; he was with him as the word and Son of God in heaven, whilst he as man, was here on earth; and he is now with him, and ever will be: and as John here speaks of the word, as a distinct person from God the Father, so do the Targums, or Chaldee paraphrases; Psa 110:1 "the Lord said to my Lord", is rendered, "the Lord said to his word"; where he is manifestly distinguished from Jehovah, that speaks to him; and in Hos 1:7 the Lord promises to "have mercy on the house of Judah", and "save them by the Lord their God". The Targum is, "I will redeem them by the word of the Lord their God"; where the word of the Lord, who is spoken of as a Redeemer and Saviour, is distinguished from the Lord, who promises to save by him. This distinction of Jehovah and his word, may be observed in multitudes of places, in the Chaldee paraphrases, and in the writings of Philo the Jew; and this phrase, of "the word" being "with God", is in the Targums expressed by, , "the word from before the Lord", or "which is before the Lord": being always in his presence, and the angel of it; so Onkelos paraphrases Gen 31:22 "and the word from before the Lord, came to Laban", &c. and Exo 20:19 thus, "and let not the word from before the Lord speak with us, lest we die"; for so it is read in the King of Spain's Bible; and wisdom, which is the same with the word of God, is said to be by him, or with him, in Pro 8:1 agreeably to which John here speaks. John makes use of the word God, rather than Father, because the word is commonly called the word of God, and because of what follows, and the word was God; not made a God, as he is said here after to be made flesh; nor constituted or appointed a God, or a God by office; but truly and properly God, in the highest sense of the word, as appears from the names by which he is called; as Jehovah, God, our, your, their, and my God, God with us, the mighty God, God over all, the great God, the living God, the true God, and eternal life; and from his perfections, and the whole fulness of the Godhead that dwells in him, as independence, eternity, immutability, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence; and from his works of creation and providence, his miracles, the work of redemption, his forgiving sins, the resurrection of himself and others from the dead, and the administration of the last judgment; and from the worship given him, as prayer to him, faith in him, and the performance of baptism in his name: nor is it any objection to the proper deity of Christ, that the article is here wanting; since when the word is applied to the Father, it is not always used, and even in this chapter, Joh 1:6 and which shows, that the word "God", is not the subject, but the predicate of this proposition, as we render it: so the Jews often use the word of the Lord for Jehovah, and call him God. Thus the words in Gen 28:20 are paraphrased by Onkelos, "if "the word of the Lord" will be my help, and will keep me, &c. then "the word of the Lord" shall be, , "my God": again, Lev 26:12 is paraphrased, by the Targum ascribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, thus, "I will cause the glory of my Shekinah to dwell among you, and my word shall "be your God", the Redeemer; once more, Deu 26:17 is rendered by the Jerusalem Targum after this manner, "ye have made "the word of the Lord" king over you this day, that he may be your God: and this is frequent with Philo the Jew, who says, the name of God is his word, and calls him, my Lord, the divine word; and affirms, that the most ancient word is God (s), (f) Apud Euseb. Prepar. Evangel. l. 11. c. 19. (g) Stromat. l. 1. p. 274. (h) Ib. p. 303. (i) Ib. Paedagog. l. 2. c. 1. p. 150. (k) Valer. Maxim. l. 8. c. 7. (l) Apuleius de dogmate Platonis, l. 1. in principio. (m) Apud. Euseb. Prepar. Evangel. l. 13. c. 12. (n) Hesych. Miles. de Philosophis. p. 50. (o) Prepar. Evangel. l. 11. c. 9. (p) De Leg. Alleg. l. 2. p. 93. de Plant. Noe, p. 217. de Migrat. Abraham, p. 389. de Profugis, p. 466. quis. rer. divin. Haeres. p. 509. (q) Targum Jon. in loc. (r) T. Bab. Pesachim, fol. 54. 1. & Nedarim, fol. 39. 2. Pirke Eliezer, c. 3. (s) De Allegor. l. 2. p. 99, 101. & de Somniis, p. 599.

And they asked him, what then? art thou Elias?.... Elijah, the prophet; the Tishbite, as Nonnus in his paraphrase expresses it; who was translated, soul and body, to heaven: the Jews had a notion that that prophet would come in person a little before the coming of the Messiah; See Gill on Mat 17:10 wherefore these messengers inquire, that since he had so fully satisfied them that he was not the Messiah, that he would as ingenuously answer to this question, if he was Elias, or not: and he saith, I am not; that is, he was not Elijah the prophet that lived in Ahab's time, and was called the Tishbite; for John's answer is to the intention of their question, and their own meaning in it, and is no contradiction to what Christ says of him, Mat 11:14 that he was the Elias that was to come; for he was the person meant by him in Mal 4:5 though not in the sense the Jews understood it; nor is it any contradiction to what the angel said to Zacharias, Luk 1:17 for he does not say that John should come in the body, but in the power and spirit of Elias; See Gill on Mat 11:14. Art thou that prophet? Jeremiah, whom some of the Jews (t) have thought to be the prophet Moses spoke of, in Deu 18:15 and expected that he would appear about the times of the Messiah; see Mat 16:14 or any one of the ancient prophets risen from the dead, which they also had a notion of, Luk 9:8 or, as it may be rendered, "art thou a prophet?" for prophecy had long ceased with them: and he answered, no; he was not Jeremiah, nor any one of the old prophets risen from the dead, nor a prophet in the sense they meant: he was not like one of the prophets of the Old Testament; he was a prophet, and more than a prophet, as Christ says, Mat 11:9 yet not such a prophet as they were; his prophesying lay not so much in predicting future events, as in pointing out Christ, and preaching the doctrine of the remission of sins by him, (t) Baal Hatturim in Deut. xviii. 15. Tzeror Hammor, fol. 127. 4. & 143. 4. Siphre in Jarchi in Jer. i. 5.

Well, then, was it really in a Pythagorean sense that the Jews approached John with the inquiry, "Art thou Elias? " and not rather in the sense of the divine prediction, "Behold, I will send you Elijah" the Tisbite? The fact, however, is, that their metempsychosis, or transmigration theory, signifies the recall of the soul which had died long before, and its return to some other body.

But we, who know the economy, adore His mercy, because He hath come to save and not to judge the world. Wherefore John, the forerunner of the Lord, who before knew not this mystery, on learning that He is Lord in truth, cried out, and spake to those who came to be baptized of him, "O generation of vipers," why look ye so earnestly at me? "I am not the Christ; " I am the servant, and not the lord; I am the subject, and not the king; I am the sheep, and not the shepherd; I am a man, and not God. By my birth I loosed the barrenness of my mother; I did not make virginity barren. I was brought up from beneath; I did not come down from above. I bound the tongue of my father; I did not unfold divine grace. I was known by my mother, and I was not announced by a star. I am worthless, and the least; but "after me there comes One who is before me" -after me, indeed, in time, but before me by reason of the inaccessible and unutterable light of divinity. "There comes One mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." I am subject to authority, but He has authority in Himself. I am bound by sins, but He is the Remover of sins. apply the law, but He bringeth grace to light. teach as a slave, but He judgeth as the Master. I have the earth as my couch, but He possesses heaven. I baptize with the baptism of repentance, but He confers the gift of adoption: "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." Why give ye attention to me? I am not the Christ.

(in Joan. tom. vi. c. 7) Some one will say that John was ignorant that he was Elias; as those say, who maintain, from this passage the doctrine of a second incorporation, as though the soul took up a new body, after leaving its old one. For the Jews, it is said, asking John by the Levites and priests, whether he is Elias, suppose the doctrine of a second body to be already certain; as though it rested upon tradition, and were part of their secret system. To which question, however, John replies, I am not Elias: not being acquainted with his own prior existence. But how is it reasonable to imagine, if John were a prophet enlightened by the Spirit, and had revealed so much concerning the Father, and the Only-Begotten, that he could be so in the dark as to himself, as not to know that his own soul had once belonged to Elias? (in Joan. tom. vi. c. 7) He answers then the Levites and Priests, I am not, conjecturing what their question meant: for the purport of their examination was to discover, not whether the spirit in both was the same, but whether John was that very Elias, who was taken up, now appearing again, as the Jews expected, without another birthI. But he whom we mentioned above as holding this doctrine of a reincorporation, will say that it is not consistent that the Priests and Levites should be ignorant of the birth of the son of so dignified a priest as Zacharias, who was born too in his father's old age, and contrary to all human probabilities: especially when Luke declares, that fear came on all that dwelt round about them. (Luke 1:65) But perhaps, since Elias was expected to appear before the coming of Christ near the end, they may seem to put the question figuratively, Art thou he who announcest the coming of Christ at the end of the world? to which he answers, I am not. But there is in fact nothing strange in supposing that John's birth might not have been known to all. For as in the case of our Saviour many knew Him to be born of Mary, and yet some wrongly imagined that He was John the Baptist, or Elias, or one of the Prophets; so in the case of John, some were not unacquainted with the fact of his being son of Zacharias, and yet some may have been in doubt whether he were not the Elias who was expected. Again, inasmuch as many prophets had arisen in Israel, but one was especially looked forward to, of whom Moses had prophesied, The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto Him shall ye hearken: (Deut. 18, 15) they ask him in the third place, not simply whether he is a prophet, but with the article prefixed, Art thou that Prophet? For every one of the prophets in succession had signified to the people of Israel that he was not the one whom Moses had prophesied of; who, like Moses, was to stand in the midst between God and man, and deliver a testament, sent from God to His disciples. They did not however apply this name to Christ, but thought that He was to be a different person; whereas John knew that Christ was that Prophet, and therefore to this question, he answered, No.

Once the priests and Levites, who were sent from Jerusalem, have heard that he is not the awaited Christ, they inquire if he might be Elijah, the person who held the second rank in honor as an object of their hope. He says that he is not Elijah, again confessing the truth through the expression "I am not."

[Someone] might say that John is Elijah who is to come, in one sense, but that he responded to the priests and Levites, "I am not," because he knew what they were really asking. For the earlier question to John from the priests and Levites was not intended to ascertain if the same spirit was in both men, but if John were that very Elijah who had been taken up, now appearing without a birth according to the Jewish expectation. For those who had been sent from Jerusalem may have been ignorant of John's birth. He appropriately answers this question, "I am not," for Elijah who had been taken up had not come, as if he had changed his body and had been named John.

Inasmuch as there were many prophets in Israel—there was one in particular, who had been prophesied by Moses, who was especially expected in accordance with the saying, "The Lord our God shall raise up a prophet like me for you from your brothers; him you shall hear"—they ask a third time, not if he is a prophet but if he is "the prophet."They do not apply this title to the Christ but suppose that he is another in addition to the Christ. Because John knows that he of whom he is the forerunner is both the Christ and this prophet who was prophesied, he says "No." He might have answered, "Yes," if they had asked their question without using the article, for he was not unaware that he was a prophet.

A certain prophet was specially expected who would be similar to Moses in some respect, to mediate between God and humankind, and who would receive the covenant from God and give the new covenant to those who became disciples. And the people of Israel knew so far as each of the prophets was concerned that no one of them was the one announced by Moses. As, therefore, they were in doubt about whether John was the Christ, so also they were in doubt whether he was "the prophet." It is not strange if those who were in doubt about whether John was the Christ did not understand thoroughly that the Christ and the prophet are the same. For not knowing that Christ and the prophet are the same is the consequence of uncertainty about John.

For it has been established that those who sent knew that John had been born of Zechariah and Elizabeth, and even more so that those who were sent, since they belonged to the priestly house and would not be unaware of the incredible good offspring of so renowned a fellow kinsman as Zechariah, also knew. What did they have in mind then when they asked, "Are you Elijah?" since they were men who had read that he was taken up as though into heaven and they were waiting for his coming? Perhaps, then, since they expect Elijah before Christ at the consummation, they seem to ask figuratively, as it were, "Are you the one who announces in advance the word that will precede Christ at the consummation?" He wisely responds to this, "I am not." … It is not strange, therefore, that, just as in the case of the Savior—although many knew of his birth from Mary, others were deceived—so also in the case of John, some were aware of his birth from Zechariah, but others were in doubt whether the awaited Elijah had appeared in the person of John.

This is the part of an honest servant, not only not to take to himself his master's honor, but also to reject it when given to him by the many. But the multitudes arrived at this supposition from simplicity and ignorance; these questioned him from an ill intention, which I have mentioned, expecting, as I said, to draw him over to their purpose by their flattery. Had they not expected this, they would not have proceeded immediately to another question, but would have been angry with him for having given them an answer foreign to their enquiry, and would have said, "Why, did we suppose that? did we come to ask thee that?" But now as taken and detected in the fact, they proceed to another question.

"What then? art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not." For they expected that Elias also would come, as Christ declares; for when His disciples enquired, "How then do the scribes say that Elias must first come?" He replied, "Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things." Then they ask, "Art thou that prophet? and he answered, No." Yet surely he was a prophet. Wherefore then doth he deny it? Because again he looks to the intention of his questioners. For they expected that some especial prophet should come, because Moses said, "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet of thy brethren like unto me, unto Him shall ye harken." Now this was Christ. Wherefore they do not say, "Art thou a prophet?" meaning thereby one of the ordinary prophets; but the expression, "Art thou the prophet?" with the addition of the article, means, "Art thou that Prophet who was foretold by Moses?" and therefore he denied not that he was a prophet, but that he was "that Prophet."

"And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias?" For they knew that Elias was to precede Christ. For to no Jew was the name of Christ unknown. They did not think that he was the Christ; but they did not think that Christ would not come at all. When they were hoping that He would come, they were offended at Him when He was present, and stumbled at Him as on a low stone. For He was as yet a small stone, already indeed cut out of the mountain without hands; as saith Daniel the prophet, that he saw a stone cut out of the mountain without hands. But what follows? "And that stone," saith he, "grew and became a great mountain and filled the whole face of the earth." Mark then, my beloved brethren, what I say: Christ, before the Jews, was already cut out from the mountain. The prophet wishes that by the mountain should be understood the Jewish kingdom. But the kingdom of the Jews had not filled the whole face of the earth. The stone was cut out from thence, because from thence was the Lord born on His advent among men. And wherefore without hands? Because without the cooperation of man did the Virgin bear Christ. Now then was that stone cut out without hands before the eyes of the Jews; but it was humble. Not without reason; because not yet had that stone increased and filled the whole earth: that He showed in His kingdom, which is the Church, with which He has filled the whole face of the earth. Because then it had not yet increased, they stumbled at Him as at a stone: and that happened in them which is written, "Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever that stone shall fall, it will grind them to powder." At first they fell upon Him lowly: as the lofty One He shall come upon them; but that He may grind them to powder when He comes in His exaltation, He first broke them in His lowliness. They stumbled at Him, and were broken; they were not ground, but broken: He will come exalted and will grind them. But the Jews were to be pardoned because they stumbled at a stone which had not yet increased. What sort of persons are those who stumble at the mountain itself? Already you know who they are of whom I speak. Those who deny the Church diffused through the whole world, do not stumble at the lowly stone, but at the mountain itself: because this the stone became as it grew. The blind Jews did not see the lowly stone: but how great blindness not to see the mountain! They saw Him then lowly, and did not know Him. He was pointed out to them by a lamp. For in the first place he, than whom no greater had arisen of those born of women, said, "I am not the Christ." It was said to him, "Art thou Elias? He answered, I am not." For Christ sends Elias before Him: and he said, "I am not," and occasioned a question for us. For it is to be feared lest men, insufficiently understanding, think that John contradicted what Christ said. For in a certain place, when the Lord Jesus Christ said certain things in the Gospel regarding Himself, His disciples answered Him: "How then say the scribes," that is, those skilled in the law, "that Elias must first come?" And the Lord said, "Elias is already come, and they have done unto him what they listed;" and, if you wish to know, John the Baptist is he. The Lord Jesus Christ said, "Elias is already come, and John the Baptist" is he; but John, being interrogated, confessed that he was not Elias, in the same manner that he confessed that he was not Christ. And as his confession that he was not Christ was true, so was his confession that he was not Elias. How then shall we compare the words of the herald with the words of the Judge? Away with the thought that the herald speaks falsehood; for that which he speaks he hears from the Judge. Wherefore then did he say, "I am not Elias;" and the Lord, "He is Elias"? Because the Lord Jesus Christ wished in him to prefigure His own advent, and to say that John was in the spirit of Elias. And what John was to the first advent, that will Elias be to the second advent. As there are two advents of the Judge, so are there two heralds. The Judge indeed was the same, but the heralds two, but not two judges. It was needful that in the first instance the Judge should come to be judged. He sent before Him His first herald; He called him Elias, because Elias will be in the second advent what John was in the first. For mark, beloved brethren, how true it is what I say. When John was conceived, or rather when he was born, the Holy Spirit prophesied that this would be fulfilled in him: "And he shall be," he said, "the forerunner of the Highest, in the spirit and power of Elias." What signifieth "in the spirit and power of Elias"? In the same Holy Spirit in the room of Elias. Wherefore in room of Elias? Because what Elias will be to the second, that John was to the first advent. Rightly therefore, speaking literally, did John reply. For the Lord spoke figuratively, "Elias, the same is John:" but he, as I have said, spoke literally when he said, "I am not Elias." Neither did John speak falsely, nor did the Lord speak falsely; neither was the word of the herald nor of the Judge false, if only thou understand. But who shall understand? He who shall have imitated the lowliness of the herald, and shall have acknowledged the loftiness of the Judge. For nothing was more lowly than the herald. My brethren, in nothing had John greater merit than in this humility, inasmuch as when he was able to deceive men, and to be thought Christ, and to have been received in the place of Christ (for so great were his grace and his excellency), nevertheless he openly confessed and said, "I am not the Christ." "Art thou Elias?" If he had said I am Elias, it would have been as if Christ were already coming in His second advent to judge, not in His first to be judged. As if saying, Elias is yet to come, "I am not," said he, "Elias." But give heed to the lowly One before whom John came, that you may not feel the lofty One before whom Elias came. For thus also did the Lord complete the saying: "John the Baptist is he which is to come." He came as a figure of that in which Elias is to come in his own person. Then Elias will in his own proper person be Elias, now in similitude he was John. Now John in his own proper person is John, in similitude Elias. The two heralds gave to each other their similitudes, and kept their own proper persons; but the Judge is one Lord, whether preceded by this herald or by that.

(in Joan. Tr. iv. c. 4) For they knew that Elias was to preach Christ; the name of Christ not being unknown to any among the Jews; but they did not think that He our Lord was the Christ: and yet did not altogether imagine that there was no Christ about to come. In this way, while looking forward to the future, they mistook at the present. And he said, I am not. (in Joan. Tr. iv. c. 8) Or because John was more than a prophet: for that the prophets announced Him afar off, but John pointed Him out actually present.

Having said by way of explanation, he confessed, I am not the Christ; he tries to show how or in what manner the confession was made; and he appears to me to wish thereby to lay bare the ill-instructedness of the Jews. For professing themselves to be wise they became fools, and puffed up at their knowledge of the Law, and ever putting forward the commandments of Moses and asserting that they were perfectly instructed in the words of the holy Prophets, by their foolish questions they are convicted of being wholly uninstructed. For the hierophant Moses saying that the Lord should be revealed as a Prophet foretold to the children of Israel, The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me, unto Him shall ye hearken; according to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb. The blessed Isaiah, introducing to us the forerunner and fore-messenger, says, The voice of one crying in the wilderness Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight: and in addition to these the Prophet Joel 13 says of |127 the Tishbite (he was Elias) Behold, I send you Elijah the Tishbite 14 who shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. There being then three, who were promised should come, Christ and John and Elias, the Jews expect that more will come, that they may rightly hear, Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures. For when they enquired of the blessed Baptist and learned that he was not the Christ, they answer, What then? art thou Elias? and on his saying I am not, when they ought to have asked respecting the fore-runner (for he it was that remained) they ignorantly return to Christ Himself, Who was revealed through the Law as a Prophet. For see what they say, not knowing what was told them through Moses, Art thou the Prophet? and he answered, No. For he was not the Christ, as he had already before declared.

These words gave rise to a very different question. In another place, our Lord, when asked by His disciples concerning the coming of Elias, replied, If ye will receive it, this is Elias. (Mat. 11:14) But John says, I am not Elias. How is he then a preacher of the truth, if he agrees not with what that very Truth declares? But if we examine the truth accurately, that which sounds inconsistent, will be found not really so. The Angel told Zacharias concerning John, He shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias. (Luke 1:17) As Elias then will preach the second advent of our Lord, so John preached His first; as the former will come as the precursor of the Judge, so the latter was made the precursor of the Redeemer. John was Elias in spirit, not in person: and what our Lord affirms of the spirit, John denies of the Person: there being a kind of propriety in this; viz. that our Lord to His disciples should speak spiritually of John, and that John, in answering the carnal multitude, should speak of his body, not of his spirit.

But when the statement of our Redeemer from another reading is brought to mind, a very complex question arises for us from the words of this reading. For in another place, when asked by his disciples about the coming of Elijah, the Lord replied: "Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. And if you wish to know, John himself is Elijah." But when John was asked, he says: "I am not Elijah." What is this, dearest brothers, that what Truth affirms, the prophet of Truth denies? For "He is" and "I am not" are very different from each other. How then is he a prophet of Truth if he does not agree with the words of that same Truth? But if the truth itself is carefully examined, what sounded contradictory between them is found not to be contradictory. For the angel says to Zechariah concerning John: "He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah." He is said to be coming in the spirit and power of Elijah because just as Elijah will precede the second coming of the Lord, so John preceded the first. Just as the former will be the precursor of the Judge, so the latter was made the precursor of the Redeemer. John therefore was Elijah in spirit; he was not Elijah in person. What the Lord therefore declares concerning the spirit, John denies concerning the person, since it was also fitting that the Lord should speak to his disciples a spiritual statement about John, and that John should answer the carnal crowds not about his spirit but about his body. Therefore what John said seems to be contrary to truth, yet he did not depart from the path of truth.

On the basis of ancient tradition, the coming of Elijah was expected. Therefore they ask John whether he is Elijah, since his life was also similar to the life of Elijah. But he denied this as well. Are you that prophet? He denies this too, even though he was a prophet. How then does he deny it? Why? Because they did not ask him: are you a prophet? But they posed the question: are you that prophet? That prophet whom they were expecting, of whom Moses said that the Lord God will raise up a prophet for you (Deut. 18:15)? So John denied not that he was a prophet, but that he was that prophet whom they were expecting. And since they knew the words of Moses about a prophet who would arise, they hoped that at some point that prophet would appear.

The second question is stated when they ask him, Who then? Are you Elijah? Here we should note that just as the Jews awaited the Lord who was to come, so too they waited for Elijah, who would precede the Messiah: "I will send you Elijah, the prophet" (Mal 4:5). And so those who were sent, seeing that John did not say that he was the Messiah, pressed him that at least he state if he were Elijah. And this is what they ask: Who then? Are you Elijah? There are certain heretics who say that souls migrate from one body to another. And this belief was current among the Jews of that time. For this reason they believed that the soul of Elijah was in John's body, because of the similarity of John's actions to those of Elijah. And they say that these messengers asked John whether he was Elijah, i.e., whether the soul of Elijah was in John. They support this with Christ's statement, "He is Elijah who is to come," as is found in Matthew (11:14). But John's answer conflicts with their opinion, as he says, I am not, i.e., Elijah. They counter this by saying that John answered in ignorance, not knowing whether his soul was the soul of Elijah. But Origen says in answer to this that it seems most unreasonable that John, a prophet enlightened by the Spirit, and telling such things about the Only Begotten Son of God, should be ignorant of himself, and not know whether his soul had been in Elijah. So this was not the reason John was asked, Are you Elijah? Rather it was because they took it from Scripture (2 Kings 2:11) that Elijah did not die, but had been carried alive by a whirlwind into heaven. Accordingly, they believed that he had suddenly appeared among them. But against this opinion is the fact that John was born from parents who were known, and his birth had been known to everyone. So it says in Luke (1:66) that all said, "What do you think this child will be?" One might say to this that it is not incredible that they should regard John in the manner described. For a similar situation is found in Matthew (14:1): for Herod thought that Christ was John, whom he had beheaded, even though Christ had been preaching and was known for some time before John had been beheaded. And so from a similar stupidity and madness the Jews asked John whether he was Elijah. Why does John say, I am not Elijah, while Christ said, "He is Elijah" (Mt 11:14)? The angel gives us the answer: "He will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Lk 1:17), i.e., in his works. Thus he was not Elijah in person, but in spirit and power, i.e., because he showed a similarity to Elijah in his works. This likeness can be found in three matters. First, in their office: because as Elijah will precede the second coming of Christ, so John preceded the first. Thus the angel said, "He will go before him." Secondly, in their manner of living. For Elijah lived in desert places, ate little food and wore coarse clothing, as recorded in 1 and 2 Kings. John, also, lived in the desert, his food was locusts and wild honey, and he wore clothing of camel's hair. Thirdly, in their zeal. For Elijah was filled with zeal; thus it was said, "I have been very zealous for the Lord" (1 Kgs 19:10). So, also, John died because of his zeal for the truth, as is clear from Matthew (14:6). Then when he says, Are you the Prophet? the third question is presented. Here there is a difficulty, for since it is said in Luke (1:76), "And you, child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High," why does John, when asked if he is a prophet, answer that he is not a prophet? There are three ways of answering this. One is that John is not just a prophet, but more than a prophet. For the other prophets only predicted future things from afar: "if there is a delay, wait for it" (Hb 2:2). But John proclaimed that the Messiah was present, pointing him out with his finger: "Look, there is the Lamb of God," as it says below (1:36). And so the Lord says that he is more than a prophet (Mt 11:9). Again, in another way, according to Origen, because through a misunderstanding the Jews associated three great personages with the coming of Christ: Christ himself, Elijah, and some other person, the greatest of the prophets, about whom Deuteronomy (18:15) says: "The Lord your God will raise up a prophet for you." And although this greatest of the prophets is in fact none other than Christ, according to the Jews he is someone other than Christ. And so they do not ask simply whether he is a prophet, but whether he is that "greatest of the prophets." And this is clear from the order of their questions. For they first ask whether he is the Messiah; secondly, whether he is Elijah; thirdly, whether he is that prophet. Accordingly, in Greek, the article is used here as signifying the prophet, as it were, antonomastically. In a third way, because the Pharisees were indignant at John for assuming the office of baptizing outside the order of the law and their tradition. For the Old Testament mentions three persons to whom this office could belong. First, to the Messiah, since "I will pour clean water upon you, and you will be cleansed" (Ez 36:25), are words considered as spoken by the person of the Messiah. Secondly, to Elijah, of whom it says in 2 Kings that he divided the water of the Jordan, and crossing over, was taken up. Finally, to Elisha, who made Naaman the Syrian wash seven times in the Jordan so as to be cured of leprosy, as mentioned in 2 Kings (c 5). And so when the Jews saw that John was baptizing, they believed that he was one of those three: the Messiah, or Elijah, or Elisha. Accordingly, when they ask here, Are you the Prophet? they are asking whether he is Elisha, who is called "prophet" in a special way because of the many miracles he had performed; hence he himself says, "Let him come to me, so that he may know that there is a prophet in Israel" (2 Kgs 5:8). And to this John answers, No, I am not Elisha.

The eternity of the Divine Logos, or Word of God, the dispenser of light and life, Joh 1:1-5. The mission of John the Baptist, Joh 1:6-13. The incarnation of the Logos or Word of God, Joh 1:14. John's testimony concerning the Logos, Joh 1:15-18. The priests and Levites question him concerning his mission and his baptism, Joh 1:19-22. His answer, Joh 1:23-28. His farther testimony on seeing Christ, Joh 1:29-34. He points him out to two of his disciples, who thereupon follow Jesus, Joh 1:35-37. Christ's address to them, Joh 1:38, Joh 1:39. Andrew invites his brother, Simon Peter; Christ's address to him, Joh 1:40-42. Christ calls Philip, and Philip invites Nathanael, Joh 1:43-46. Christ's character of Nathanael, Joh 1:47. A remarkable conversation between him and this disciple, Joh 1:48-51. John's introduction is from John 1:1-18. Some harmonists suppose it to end with Joh 1:14. but, from the connection of the whole, Joh 1:18 appears to be its natural close, at it contains a reason why the Logos or Word was made flesh. Joh 1:15 refers to Joh 1:6-8, and in these passages John's testimony is anticipated in order of time, and is very fitly mentioned to illustrate Christ's pre-eminence. Joh 1:16, Joh 1:17 have a plain reference to Joh 1:14. See Bp. Newcome.

Art thou Elias? - The scribes themselves had taught that Elijah was to come before the Messiah. See Mat 17:10; and this belief of theirs they supported by a literal construction of Mal 4:5. Art thou that prophet? - the prophet spoken of by Moses, Deu 18:15, Deu 18:18. This text they had also misunderstood: for the prophet or teacher promised by Moses was no other than the Messiah himself. See Act 3:22. But the Jews had a tradition that Jeremiah was to return to life, and restore the pot of manna, the ark of the covenant, etc., which he had hidden that the Babylonians might not get them. Besides this, they had a general expectation that all the prophets should come to life in the days of the Messiah. I am not - I am not the prophet which you expect, nor Elijah: though he was the Elijah that was to come; for in the spirit and power of that eminent prophet he came, proclaiming the necessity of reformation in Israel. See Mat 11:14; Mat 17:10-13.

THE WORD MADE FLESH. (Joh 1:1-14) In the beginning--of all time and created existence, for this Word gave it being (Joh 1:3, Joh 1:10); therefore, "before the world was" (Joh 17:5, Joh 17:24); or, from all eternity. was the Word--He who is to God what man's word is to himself, the manifestation or expression of himself to those without him. (See on Joh 1:18). On the origin of this most lofty and now for ever consecrated title of Christ, this is not the place to speak. It occurs only in the writings of this seraphic apostle. was with God--having a conscious personal existence distinct from God (as one is from the person he is "with"), but inseparable from Him and associated with Him (Joh 1:18; Joh 17:5; Jo1 1:2), where "THE FATHER" is used in the same sense as "GOD" here. was God--in substance and essence GOD; or was possessed of essential or proper divinity. Thus, each of these brief but pregnant statements is the complement of the other, correcting any misapprehensions which the others might occasion. Was the Word eternal? It was not the eternity of "the Father," but of a conscious personal existence distinct from Him and associated with Him. Was the Word thus "with God?" It was not the distinctness and the fellowship of another being, as if there were more Gods than one, but of One who was Himself God--in such sense that the absolute unity of the God head, the great principle of all religion, is only transferred from the region of shadowy abstraction to the region of essential life and love. But why all this definition? Not to give us any abstract information about certain mysterious distinctions in the Godhead, but solely to let the reader know who it was that in the fulness of time "was made flesh." After each verse, then, the reader must say, "It was He who is thus, and thus, and thus described, who was made flesh."

Elias--in His own proper person. that prophet--announced in Deu 18:15, &c., about whom they seem not to have been agreed whether he were the same with the Messiah or no.