The Bible Says
John 1:19-28 Meaning

The parallel Gospel accounts of John 1:19-28 are Matthew 3:11-12, Mark 1:7-8, Luke 3:15-17.

In John 1:19-28, priests are sent to investigate John the Baptist’s identity, but he denied being the Christ, Elijah, or the Prophet, and declared himself as the prophetic voice preparing the way of the Lord. He further testified that One far greater than he was already present among them.

After the prologue to his Gospel, that introduced Jesus as the Word made flesh (John 1:14) and the Light of men (John 1:5), the author of this Gospel (who was also named John) begins his narrative with the testimony of John the Baptizer.

* Note for the sake of clarity, from this point forward this section of commentary (John 1:19-28), unless otherwise noted, will use:

• The name: “John” or “the Baptizer” when referring to John the Baptist;

• The terms: “John’s Gospel,” “this gospel,” or “the Gospel of John” when referring to the Gospel According to John;

• The terms: “the author,” “writer of this gospel,” or “John-Jesus’s disciple” when referring to Jesus’s disciple, John, who was the author of this account.
  
  

John the Baptist

The significance of John the Baptizer in the life and ministry of Jesus is enormous.

Two of the four Gospels begin their accounts with John (Mark 1:2, Luke 1:5-25). And the other two use the ministry of John to introduce the ministry of Jesus (Matthew 3:1-12, John 1:19-34).

John is first introduced in the middle of this gospel’s prologue:

“There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.”
(John 1:6-8)

In the author’s brief introduction of the Baptizer, we are told that John was created and sent from God to testify that the Messiah was about to enter the world. John prepared the way for Jesus, the Messiah, until Jesus came forward to begin His Messianic ministry. At that point, John transitioned his message to say: this was the One I have been telling you about (John 1:15).

The Gospel of John does not tell us much about Baptizer’s life through narrative.

Of the four accounts of Jesus’s life, Luke’s gives the most extensive information about who John the Baptist was. For instance, it is from Luke’s Gospel that we learn about the miraculous circumstances of his conception (Luke 1:5-24) and birth (Luke 1:57-80), and that John the Baptist and Jesus were cousins through their mothers (Luke 1:36).

Matthew, Mark, and Luke all present John as the foretold Messianic forerunner (Matthew 3:1-3, Mark 1:2-4, Luke 3:3-6).

Luke also dates the beginning of John’s public ministry to “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar…” (Luke 3:1-2). Depending on if Luke’s reckoning began when Tiberius was co-emperor with Augustus, or began a year later when Tiberius first ruled the Roman empire alone, this would correspond to the dates 26/27 A.D. or 28/29 A.D.

If it was the earlier date, then John began his ministry as the forebearer when he was about thirty years old. Jesus was also thirty years old when He began His ministry as the Messiah (Luke 3:23). Thirty years old was the age that Jewish tradition considered a man to be of “full strength” (Mishnah. Avot 5:21).

From this it seems that John began his role as the Messianic forebearer six months before Jesus was baptized.

To learn more about John the Baptist, see The Bible Says article: “Who was John the Baptist?”

John’s Use of Dialogue over Narrative

The style of John’s Gospel utilizes dialogue rather than narrative to reveal its insights. John’s Gospel consistently eavesdrops its readers into meaningful interactions with Jesus and others. But rather than explain or summarize what happened, John’s Gospel unfolds its important content through the conversations it records. It provides just enough background to set the framework for its recorded conversations.

The author frames this conversation with three lines of bare narrative.

• The opening line introduces who is doing the talking-John and priests and Levites from Jerusalem (v 19a).

• The second line of narrative is a short interjection that may split this dialogue into two separate conversations-Now they had been sent from the Pharisees (v 24).

• The closing line tells us where the conversation(s) took place-in Bethany beyond the Jordan (v 28).

• In between these three lines of narrative is dialogue (vv 19b-27).

And right after its prologue (John 1:1-18), the Gospel of John begins its account with this important conversation between the Baptizer and Jewish religious leaders.

This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” (v 19).

The gospel writer introduces the entire exchange from verse 19 to verse 27 with the expression: This is the testimony of John.

The Greek word that is translated as testimony in verse 19 is μαρτυρία (G3141-pronounced: “mar-too-ree-ah”). It is the same Greek word that is translated as “witness” in John 1:7 and is the noun form of the verb that is translated as “testify” also in John 1:7. The English word “martyr” is derived from these Greek terms.

The testimony means a solemn declaration or witness concerning the truth of a matter.

In the context of verse 9, testimony refers to the formal account which John the Baptist gave to the religious authorities who were sent to investigate about his identity and purpose.

John’s testimony is the first proof or piece of evidence that the gospel writer provides for his core claim that Jesus is both God (the Logos-John 1:1) and the Messiah (the Light-John 1:4).

As we will see, John’s testimony was not self-promoting but was a faithful and truthful witness aligned with God’s calling on his life.

The gospel writer says that John gave his testimony when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to the Baptizer.

The Jews and Jewish Religious Culture

Before continuing, it is worth mentioning here that throughout the Gospel of John, the term the Jews is often used to refer to the leading figures and parties of the religious institutions. The author does not necessarily mean the entire Jewish people-when he says the Jews, but rather their religious leadership.

There were multiple religious parties within the established Jewish social structure-the Zealots, the Essenes, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees. The two parties that were the most culturally dominant parties were the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

Both the Pharisees and Sadducees descended from the tradition established by the Maccabees, who led a resistance against Greek rulers seeking to exterminate Jewish religious practice. The Pharisees were seen as the primary bearer of that torch; they were viewed as guardians of Jewish faith and culture.

They taught the Law of Moses and the prophets in the local synagogues, which they controlled and operated. Closely aligned with the Pharisees were the Scribes-who were legal experts. Together the Pharisees and Scribes developed an oral tradition surrounding the Mosaic law and their interpretations of the Law were seen as authoritative.

This oral tradition is called “the Mishnah.”

The Sadducees were priests, and they operated the Temple and its system of daily and personal sacrifices. Consequently, the Sadducees were based out of Jerusalem, where the Temple was located. The leader of the Sadducees was the high priest.

Caiaphas, the son-in-law to Annas (John 18:13), was the high priest the year the word of the Lord first came to John in the wilderness (Luke 3:2).

The leading figures of the Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees held seats on the Jewish Council called “the Sanhedrin.”

The Sanhedrin consisted of 70 members who settled religious debates and sat as judges on all matters of Jewish law. The leading Scribes and Pharisees who sat on this council were known as “the elders” and the leading figures of the Sadducees who sat on this council were called “chief priests.” The Sanhedrin met in Jerusalem.

In this specific context, the term Jews most likely refers to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem who sent a delegation of priests and Levites from Jerusalem to question John the Baptist.

The author of this gospel frequently (but not always) refers to all of these groups generically as the Jews, while the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke often refer to them specifically by name. (The author of this gospel occasionally specifies these religious parties by name).

One possible reason why this author referred to all these religious groups simply as the Jews instead of specifically identifying them was because at the time of his writing there was no longer any reason to make a distinction between various religious groups of the Jews.

This was because this gospel was written after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. The first three gospels accounts were likely published before this catastrophic event when the distinctions between religious groups of the Jews mattered more.

After 70 A.D. there was no longer an active party of the Sadducees nor was there the Sanhedrin Council. The Pharisees were the religious party to remain intact following Jerusalem’s fall. And by the time this gospel was published, the expression-the Jews-was a widely used term to describe the Jewish religious leaders.

Meanwhile, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke appear to have all been composed before Rome destroyed Jerusalem and stripped its religious leaders of any political authority.

Therefore, it made sense for the first three gospels to make this distinction, while this gospel account did not.

Verse 19 is the first time the gospel writer uses the expression the Jews in this way.

In this specific context, the term Jews most likely refers to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem who sent a delegation of priests and Levites from Jerusalem to question John the Baptist.

The Levites were descendants of Israel’s son Levi, and the Levites were designated by God to be the priestly tribe of Jerusalem (Numbers 3:6-10).

The reason the Sanhedrin sent a delegation to John was because John was baptizing large numbers of people in Bethany beyond the Jordan (v 28b). Matthew reports:

“Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins.”
(Matthew 3:5-6-see also Mark 1:4-5)

The Baptism and Message of John

This Gospel writer agrees with Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that these things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing (v 28).

Bethany beyond the Jordan refers to a location east of the Jordan River. It was across or beyond the river from where Jerusalem was positioned. It is generally identified with the area near modern-day Al-Maghtas in present-day Jordan. Bethany beyond the Jordan lay outside the immediate influence of the Jewish religious authorities in Jerusalem. It was a fitting place for John to begin his prophetic role in calling people out to the wilderness to  repent of their sins and learn of the path to reconciliation to God (Isaiah 40:3-5).

John was baptizing people in that place-Bethany beyond the Jordan.

It is worth noting that baptism was a common practice in Jewish religious life. Archeology has discovered over a hundred mikvahs near the temple mount in Jerusalem. A “mikvah” is a small cellar with steps that allows someone to walk down into the water and immerse themselves. The Jews immersed themselves in water as a ritual of purity prior to participating in other religious practices. The House of Caiphas the high priest was also discovered, and it has a mikvah as well.

Further, the Essene ruins at Qumran have ritual mikvahs too. It is believed that the Essenes who copied the Hebrew scriptures there would baptize themselves both before and after they copied God’s name, “Yahweh” on their parchments. Therefore, the fact that Jews would travel all the way to the Jordan River, perhaps walking days, in order to submit to John’s baptism shows that there was something very special about his message of baptism for the repentance of sins. The ritual purity baths focused on the external. John’s baptism focused on the heart.

As already discussed, to baptize someone is to immerse them. And John was baptizing people by dunking them in the Jordan River. Because John baptized so many people-he is known as “John the Baptist” or “John the Baptizer.” John’s baptism was an external sign publicly proclaimed by people to show that they had repented of their sins and anticipated the Messiah.

By undergoing John’s baptism, these Jews publicly identified themselves with John’s message about the coming kingdom. His baptism indicated two things about a person:

1. John’s baptism indicated that a person repented of their sins (Matthew 3:11, Luke 3:3).
   
   Repentance means to change one’s mind about something. And to repent of sins means to change one’s mind about one’s heart and/or behavior and acknowledge that it is not good-but sinful. Repentance of sins (a change of mind) should lead to a change of behavior (Matthew 3:8).
   
   The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke all emphasize the Baptizer’s message of repentance, while the Gospel of John emphasizes the second aspect of the Baptizer’s message.
   
   
2. John’s baptism indicated that their heart was prepared to accept whomever John would identify as the Messiah. This indicates that the Messiah’s message was not going to satisfy those whose hearts were not focused on God.
   
   John was sent from God to testify about the Messiah so that all might believe through him (John 1:6-7). John’s preaching prepared people for the Messiah’s coming:
   
   “He was preaching, and saying, ‘After me One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to stoop down and untie the thong of His sandals. I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.’”
   (Mark 1:7-8-see also John 1:26-27)
   
   John later identified Jesus as the Messiah (John 1:15, 1:29, 1:34).
   
   Decades later, as the Apostle Paul went through Ephesus, he encountered some who were baptized by John, but who still had not yet heard that it was Jesus whom John proclaimed the Messiah (Acts 19:1-3). Paul then said to them:

“John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”
(Acts 19:4)

“When they heard this…,” they believed and “…were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus”
(Acts 19:5).

The baptisms of John (Mark 1:5) and his message of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4, Luke 1:77) and the coming kingdom (Matthew 3:2) and Messiah (Mark 1:7-8, John 1:6-7, 26-27) had quickly caused quite a stir. His urgent message, sudden rise, and the large crowds that flocked to him attracted the attention of the Jewish religious leaders. However, as we will see, their attentiveness was not upon John’s message but upon his potential threat to their power.

The Priests and Levites’ Investigation of John the Baptist

As the spiritual leaders of the Jews, it was their job to investigate who John was and what he was about. They had an obligation to do this before God, to consider John’s message and claims and to ensure that he was not a false prophet misleading the people (Deuteronomy 13:1-3, 18:20-22).

The Jewish religious leaders also had a duty to Rome, to let the Romans know if anyone was sowing seeds that would cause an insurrection. Rome was the imperial power over Judea; Roman authorities allowed the Jewish religious authorities a degree of power, so long as they were able to keep the people under control.

With John attracting the attention of large crowds, the Roman authorities would likely notice, and they would expect the Sanhedrin to be able to give them a satisfactory answer about this preacher.

This delegation of priests and Levites that were sent to John ensured that the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem would have an answer.

Taking all these things into consideration, it seems apparent that John had already begun his ministry and begun to gather the crowds in the wilderness (Matthew 3:1-4, Mark 1:4-8, Luke 3:1-2) by the time the Jews sent the priests and Levites to him.

It also seems that their initial investigation phase, recorded here in John 1:19-23, preceded the contentious confrontations between John and the religious leaders recorded in Matthew 3:7-12.

The fact the author says that priests and Levites were sent from the Sanhedrin may suggest that the Council sent more than one delegation to find out who John was. Perhaps they first sent priests and then they sent higher ranking Levites.

In either case, whether they sent one delegation or many, the line of questioning and John’s responses were as follows:

The priests and Levites were sent to ask John: “Who are you?”

This was a formal inquiry from the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem into who John was. What follows is in accordance with John’s official testimony to this investigation.

And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ” (v 20).

John appeared to understand who it was they had in mind that he might be-the Christ.

John’s intuition aligned with Luke’s report that “the people were in a state of expectation and all were wondering in their hearts about John, as to whether he was the Christ” (Luke 3:15).

The Jews’ expectation was in part because the prophet Daniel had proclaimed “seventy weeks” before the Messiah would come (Daniel 9:24).

The Jews understood Daniel’s prophecy to mean seventy weeks of years, or 490 years. In his prophecy, the Messiah would appear after sixty-nine weeks-483 years after a proclamation was given to rebuild the wall in Jerusalem. During this time, many believed the end of the 483 year “prophetic clock” was approaching (Daniel 9:25). In hindsight, we know they were correct. Using one way to count the “clock,” Jesus entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey colt exactly 483 years after a decree to rebuild the wall.

The English word-Christ, is a transliteration of the Greek term Χριστός (G5547-pronounced: “Chris-tos”). “Christos” is the Greek term for “anointed” and is used throughout the Septuagint-the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament-to translate the Hebrew term “masiah” - מָשִׁיחַ (H4899-pronounced “maw-shē-ack). “Masiah” also means “anointed” and is often transliterated into English as “Messiah.”

Therefore: Christ = Messiah= anointed.

The Messiah is the anointed of the Lord. The Lord promised to send His anointed servant (the Messiah/Christ) to redeem Israel from her captors and restore the Jews to prosperity (Isaiah 61:1-2). The Messiah/Christ was expected to be a king who would establish the Jewish people as a glorious nation on earth. This is because of biblical prophecies that predict exactly this, that the Messiah would reign as king over Israel; the Messiah will be the son of David whose reign would never end (2 Samuel 7:12-16, Psalm 2:6-8, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Daniel 7:13-14).

The Jews were anxiously looking and waiting “in a state of expectation” (Luke 3:15) for the Christ to liberate them from Roman oppression. The Romans would have viewed anyone claiming to be the Christ who would reign over Israel as a threat to Caesar’s claim as the ruling authority.

John’s presence and message were so influential that the Jews wondered if he might be the Christ. John was a dynamic figure, and there was an intensity about him that indicated that his message was important. And, indeed, His message was important because John was sent from God to prepare the way for the coming of the Christ.

For these reasons, the Sanhedrin seemed curious if John was the Christ, or at the very least if John claimed to be the Christ.

John’s Confession that He is Not the Christ
But from the outset, John confessed: “I am not the Christ.”

To confess means to agree aloud. When a person confesses their sins, they agree with God by using their own voice that their behavior/and or heart is sinful.

But when John was confessing to the priests and Levites-he was saying aloud using his own voice that he agreed with God (and perhaps his inquisitors) that he was not the Messiah. It is interesting to note that they did not ask him “Are you the Christ?”  Rather, they asked “Who are you?” John clearly saw through their question and asked what they were really after.

The gospel writer indicates how John did not deny who he was to the priests and Levites.  And the most important or at least first fact about his identity was that he was not the Christ.

The structure of the gospel writer’s statement: And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ,” strongly emphasizes John’s faithfulness to his mission.

Twice the gospel writer positively states John’s faithfulness by using the word: confessed. And twice the gospel writer negatively demonstrates John’s faithfulness, first through the expression and did not deny and again through John’s actual confession: I am not the Christ.

If John had declared himself to be the Christ, then he would have been a false prophet and unfaithful to his mission. John was the opposite; he was a faithful and true prophet. Moreover, if John would have declared himself the Christ, he would have given cause to the religious leaders (who themselves were not faithful-Matthew 23:2-36 and John 2:14-18) sufficient grounds to get rid of him.

After faithfully testifying who he was not, the priests and Levites asked John a few follow-up questions:

They asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” And he said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No” (v 22).

The fact that they asked him, “What then?” immediately after John denied being the Christ indicates a measure of surprise from these priests and Levites. Their question amounts to-“What!!?? If you are not the Christ, then who are you?”

The delegation of priests and Levites then began to speculate who John might be or claim himself to be.

The first figure they asked him about was Elijah-“Are you Elijah?”

John responded: “I am not (Elijah).”

The second figure they asked him about was the Prophet-“Are you the Prophet?”

John replied: “No-(I am not the Prophet).”

John is Not the Literal Elijah
The likely reason they asked John about these figures was because in the Jews’ minds, Elijah and the Prophet were both somehow related to the Christ.

Elijah was one of the greatest prophets of Israel. Elijah was known for his bold confrontation of wickedness and his unwavering commitment to the LORD. He ministered during the reign of Ahab, king of the northern kingdom of Israel, a time marked by rampant idolatry and apostasy. During his ministry, Elijah:

• Dramatically challenged the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel, calling upon the LORD to send fire from heaven, which He did;
  (1 Kings 18:38-39, see also: 18:20-40)

• Prayed for drought and rain according to the word of the LORD, demonstrating God’s power over nature;
  (1 Kings 17:1, 18:41-45)

• Did not die-“And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven.”
  (2 Kings 2:11)

Elijah held a special place in Jewish expectation concerning the coming of the Messiah because the LORD had promised through the prophet Malachi that Elijah himself would return before the great and terrible day of the LORD.

“Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. He will turn the hearts of the fathers back to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and strike the land with complete destruction.”
(Malachi 4:5-6)

This prophecy is given in the final verses of the Old Testament. It led many Jews to believe that Elijah would be a herald or forerunner of the Messiah, preparing the people spiritually for the LORD’s arrival and the Messianic kingdom.

John was not the literal prophet Elijah returned from heaven to earth. This was why he answered: “I am not” when they asked him: “Are you Elijah?” He was not the actual returned prophet; he was John, the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth.

But John did come in the prophetic role of Elijah that Malachi prophesied. When the angel Gabriel announced John’s birth, he said that John would go before the Christ “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17).

Moreover, after John the Baptizer’s execution by Herod (Matthew 14), Jesus’s disciples Peter, James, and John asked Him: “Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” (Matthew 17:10). Jesus answered them: “I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished” (Matthew 17:12). Matthew then records: “Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist” (Matthew 17:13).

To this day the Jews are still waiting for Elijah to return and announce the Messiah’s arrival, and they believe he will come at Passover. Jewish Seders commemorate this by pouring and leaving a cup of wine for Elijah in anticipation of his return. John may have even been born at Passover in fulfillment of the Jews’ own expectation.

It could be that Elijah will come back to earth in person prior to Jesus’s second coming as one of the two witnesses spoken of in Revelation 11; many of the things done by the two witnesses are the same as those done by Elijah in the Old Testament.

John came in the prophetic role of Elijah, but he was not the man Elijah himself. And the Jews missed John’s true significance.

John is not the Prophet
The priests and Levites also asked John: “Are you the Prophet?”

Their question reflected their expectation of a particular prophetic figure promised by God through Moses. Moses declared to the Israelites:

“The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him.”
(Deuteronomy 18:15)

Later in the same chapter, the LORD Himself affirmed:

“I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.”
(Deuteronomy 18:18).

These prophecies were deeply embedded in Jewish thought. Many believed that a prophet with divine authority and unparalleled leadership would arise in the last days to guide the people.

In the Jewish perspective of the time, the Prophet mentioned by Moses was closely associated with the Messiah/Christ. Some believed the Prophet would be the actual Messiah/Christ. Some believed the Prophet would be Elijah, the Messianic forerunner. Others thought the Prophet would be a counterpart or some other powerful figure within the Messiah’s reign. This is why they asked John if he was the Prophet, since he was not the Christ nor Elijah.

We now know who the Prophet is. The Prophet is Jesus Christ. Jesus was and is the Prophet like Moses, who was foretold in Deuteronomy 18:15-18. In fulfillment of this prophecy, Jesus is the Word made Flesh who spoke God’s words directly to the people (John 1:14-18).

Deuteronomy 18:16 describes that the people of Israel were afraid on “Horeb” (Mount Sinai) because God partially unveiled Himself. They asked “’Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.’” Moses then promised “a prophet from among their countrymen” and said He would “put My words in his mouth.” Jesus was God in human form that fulfilled this prophecy.

But John was not the Prophet, which is why when they asked him: “Are you the Prophet?”, John answered, “No.”

Frustrated at John’s negative answers to their questions about whether he was the Christ, Elijah, or the Prophet, the delegation of priests and Levites finally asked John more open-ended questions that allowed him to speak for himself.

The Role of John the Baptist
Then they said to him, “Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?” (v 22).

The priests and Levites told John they were expected to give an answer to those who sent them. They needed to report on who John was. As explained earlier, those who sent them were likely the Sanhedrin Council in Jerusalem.

This delegation was to report back their findings to their superiors and apparently all they had to report back was that John, the eccentric man who was preaching and baptizing crowds in the wilderness was not the Christ, Elijah, or the Prophet. But they had nothing to tell regarding who John was or what he said about himself. Their answer would have been unsatisfactory unless John gave them something positive or more definitive than his denials. So, they asked him: Who are you?-and-What do you say about yourself?

John answered with a descriptive response concerning his identity:

He said, “I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as Isaiah the prophet said” (v 23).

John claimed to be the fulfillment of a prophecy from the prophet Isaiah. Specifically, John claimed to be a voice of one crying in the wilderness that calls out “Make straight the way of the Lord.”

This prophecy comes from Isaiah 40:3:

“A voice is calling,
‘Clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness;
Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.”
(Isaiah 40:3)

The Jews understood Isaiah 40:3 to be the central verse of a broader prophecy (Isaiah 40:1-5) predicting the coming of the Messiah’s forerunner-the figure who will announce and prepare Israel for the Christ’s coming.

John was the Messianic forerunner who was sent to prepare the way for the Christ (John 1:6-8). And John was the fulfillment of this prediction from the prophet Isaiah (Matthew 3:1-3, Mark 1:2-4, Luke 3:2-6).

John was incredibly forthcoming and absolutely correct as he answered the priests and Levites’ question about who he was when he said, “I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as Isaiah the prophet said.”

From this statement about himself, the Jews would have instantly recognized that John was claiming to be the Christ’s forerunner. This would have been an answer they could return to Jerusalem with.

The Isaiah passage says “a voice” which indicates a singular voice crying out. John could have applied that passage to himself and said, “I am the voice spoken of in Isaiah.” However, he says he was a voice. In choosing these words, John defines his ministry as temporary and functional:

• He is not the Word (John 1:1),
• He is not the Light (John 1:5,
• He is not the Christ

He is simply a voice that points beyond itself to One far greater. John’s humility in this grammatical change fits John’s pattern of constantly minimizing his own importance and pointing others to Jesus and His superiority.

• In this same dialogue, John will compare himself to an unworthy servant and confess how he is not worthy to untie the sandal of the Christ.
  (v 27 - see also: Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:7, Luke 3:16).

• John confesses that the Christ “has a higher rank than I.”
  (John 1:30)

• John will assign Jesus the central role of the Bridegroom and declare that he is only the Bridegroom’s friend.
  (John 3:29)

• “He must increase, but I must decrease.”
  (John 3:30)

John’s declining the opportunity to personalize Isaiah’s prophecy to assert that he is “the voice” is another example of his humility. By claiming to be “a voice” John does not make Isaiah’s prophecy about himself, but rather points to how this prophecy about the forerunner is really about the Messiah.

Now we return to the dialogue of John 1:19-28.

The Pharisees’ Investigation of John the Baptist

At this point it is unclear if the remaining portion of the dialogue between John and the religious leaders is part of the same specific conversation or if it is a follow-up conversation that took place later. The reason they may be separate occasions is because the author’s interjection:

Now they had been sent from the Pharisees (v 24).

This statement could be clarifying that the Jews from Jerusalem who originally sent the priests and Levites to John were Pharisees-or-this statement could be indicating that it was a different interview and delegation-this time sponsored by the Pharisees instead of the Sadducees.

If the author is simply clarifying that it was the Pharisees who sent the priests and Levites, then what follows in verses 25-27 are likely the conclusion of the same conversation that took place on the same occasion. Also, this would mean that the Pharisees who sent them would have been members of the Sanhedrin Council, because only Pharisees who were on that council would have had the authority to give orders to send priests and Levites somewhere. (Priests and Levites were members of the Sadducee party).

On the other hand, the author may be using the line Now they had been sent from the Pharisees to indicate a different occasion. If so, then he is saying that after priests and Levites learned that John claimed to be the forerunner of the Christ, the Pharisees sent their own new delegation to John as they investigated things further.

In either case, whether the dialogue of John 1:19-27 took place in a single conversation, or across multiple days and weeks with different interviewers, the substance of John’s testimony and the Jews’ line of questioning is the same.

Those who had been sent from the Pharisees asked John a follow up question.

They asked him, and said to him, “Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?” (v 25).

Their question implies that John had no right to be baptizing since he was not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet. And their question reveals also the heart of the religious leaders’ concern. Their interrogation was not merely about John's identity. But rather it was about his authority.

The Pharisees’ question was designed to frame John and force him to either submit to their authority or to cease baptizing. (We will see in his response how John disregarded their faulty framing designed to trap him when we discuss vv 26-27).

In the minds of the scribes, Levites, and Pharisees, only a divinely anointed figure-such as the Christ, Elijah, or the Prophet-would have the right to perform a spiritual practice like baptism-especially one being performed outside their existing systems of the synagogue and the temple and apart from their oversight.

John’s baptizing was disruptive to the religious order, and it appeared to threaten their own authority. Accordingly, they demanded to know by what right John was baptizing and calling Israel to repentance. We will see a culmination of this seed of self-seeking and preservation of petty earthly authority later in John’s gospel.

In John 11:47-50, the Pharisees and priests will conspire to kill Jesus after He raises Lazarus from the dead. After Jesus raised someone from death you might think the Jewish leaders would at least give some thought as to whether He might actually be the Christ. But they only think of their position, saying “If we let Him go on like this [doing miracles] all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation” (John 11:48).

The leaders' question also reveals the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ assumptions about the coming of the Messiah and the restoration of Israel.

They expected that when the Christ or His herald (Elijah) appeared, it would be with unmistakable authority, signs, and perhaps official recognition from within the religious system itself. It bothered them that John, someone who claimed to be the forerunner to the Christ, had attracted crowds and initiated a powerful movement in the wilderness without such credentials. It seems they were only willing to consider a Christ who answered to them and fit under their authority.

Their question also betrays a deeper issue. It was not that the Pharisees and the other leading Jews lacked information, they thoroughly knew the religious traditions. But they fundamentally misunderstood the nature of true spiritual authority. All true authority (spiritual or otherwise) comes from God, not institutional endorsement.

John’s ministry, though unconventional, was fully aligned with the prophetic tradition and divine commission. He was “sent from God” (John 1:6). John did not need the Pharisees or the Sadducees’ endorsement to prepare hearts for the arrival of the Christ. He did not need their permission to preach a baptism of repentance or to call people out of their rituals and into relationship.

As the religious leaders of the Jews focused on titles and positions, they failed to recognize the significance of what was happening right in front of them. Meanwhile the tax collectors and sinners recognized the authenticity of John’s spiritual authority and repented in preparation for the Christ’s coming.

Sadly, it seems that even after John’s death, the leading priests and Pharisees in Jerusalem refused to acknowledge John’s authority (Matthew 21:23-27).

John answered them saying, “I baptize in water, but among you stands One whom you do not know. It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie” (vv 26-27).

Instead of directly answering (and accepting) the Pharisees’ framework (Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?) which was designed to force him to either submit to their authority or stop his ministry, John redirected their attention away from himself and toward the One who was already among them, whose authority far surpassed theirs.

The One who stands among you and He who comes after me are both descriptions of the Christ.

The phrase stands among you indicates that the Christ is not just born and alive, but already is fully grown and standing. The Christ is ready being His ministry.

The religious leaders do not know who this person is, even though He stands among them.   And at this moment neither does John know the Christ’s identity (John 1:29-34). It also inferred that John did not yet know that his cousin, Jesus, was the Christ. In John 1:31, the Baptizer will say this explicitly.

John humbly downplayed the importance his ministry of baptizing people compared to the ministry of He who comes after him.

John said: I baptize with water.

John’s baptism was meaningful but symbolic. It was administered with water and was a public display of a changed heart and mind-it was for repentance and the forgiveness of sins (Luke 3:3).  John’s baptism indicated that the people he was baptizing wished to be prepared for the coming of the Christ.

John could preach the message of repentance and immerse the penitent in water as a sign of their commitment to God and His approaching kingdom. But John’s testimony-I baptize with water-was his way of explaining that this is the limit of his ministry.

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke’s Gospel accounts, John minimizes his symbolic baptism with water with the baptism which will be instituted by the Christ:

“He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”
(Matthew 3:11b-See also Mark 1:8 and Luke 3:16)

(See The Bible Says commentary for Mark 1:7-8 for a detailed explanation of what John meant by baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire.)

John contrasted his unworthiness to the greatness of the Christ when he said: the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie. The lowliest of servants untied the sandals of their lords. This image depicted how John was not worthy to be the lowest servant of the One who came after him.

And yet John was the forerunner-prophetic voice-preparing the Christ’s ministry. Jesus would later describe John as “one who is more than a [mere] prophet” (Luke 7:26) and how “among those born of women there is no one greater than John” (Luke 7:28). For John to describe himself as an unworthy servant for such a menial task such as untying a sandal modeled remarkable humility to the Pharisees as he prepared them for the coming Messiah.

Ultimately John’s answer humbly expressed to the Pharisees that the reason why he was baptizing was because God and His Messiah wanted him to baptize people and that his authority was from God.

John’s authority comes from He who comes after me. Because John is the forerunner to the Christ, John comes before the Christ does. The Christ is He who comes after John.

Therefore, John answers the Pharisees’ question: Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet? with the implied response: because the Christ, the One who is of immeasurable authority and who is coming after me, told me to.

John will later state even more explicitly how it was God who authorized him to baptize when he said it was “He who sent me to baptize in water” (John 1:33b).

By swatting away their framing and humbly reframing the issue properly, John not only avoided their trap, but his response exposed the religious leaders’ spiritual blindness: they did not recognize the very One whom John’s ministry was preparing the way for.

The Gospel of Matthew reports a more contentious exchange between John and the religious leaders (Matthew 3:7-10). In this exchange John sternly rebukes the Pharisees. It is unclear if this was part of the same conversation recorded here in the Gospel of John or if this was a separate encounter.

The Bible Says commentary explaining John’s rebuke as recorded by Matthew can be found here and here.

The Gospel Writer’s arrangement of John 1:24-2:11 into Seven Days

One final thing to point out is that the writer of this Gospel appears to organize the opening events of his account into a calendar week. There are five events in seven days, one event for each “day” with the fourth event begin a three-day journey from Judea to Galilee.

• The first event was when the priests and Levites and/or Pharisees from Jerusalem questioned John the Baptizer in Bethany beyond the Jordan (John 1:19-28).

• The second event was “on the next day” (John 1:29a), when John proclaimed Jesus to be "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29-34).

• The third event happened “again the next day” (John 1:35a) when Jesus invited Andrew and another of the Baptizer's disciples to follow Him. Andrew also introduced his brother Simon to Jesus on this day (John 1:35-42).

• The fourth event was “the next day” (John 1:43a) when Jesus purposed to go into Galilee, (and possibly the wedding in Cana), when Andrew introduced Philip to Jesus (John 1:43-51).

• The fifth event is Jesus’s miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana (John 2:1-11). It was roughly a three-day journey from Bethany beyond the Jordan to Cana in Galilee which is likely why the author says how the wedding took place “on the third day” (John 2:1a). It was the third day since Jesus left Bethany beyond the Jordan.

By utilizing the seven-day device, the gospel writer may be paralleling the beginning of Jesus’s ministry with the seven-day creation account of Genesis (Genesis 1:2-2:3).

The gospel writer concludes these interactions by telling us where they occurred:

These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing (v 28).

As previously discussed, Bethany beyond the Jordan was located east of the Jordan River, approximately 20-25 miles northeast of Jerusalem, across the river in the wilderness region near the edge of Judea.

In the next section of scripture (John 1:29-34), John dramatically identifies Jesus as the Christ when he says “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29).