John 1:19-28

2. John's Answer

John 1:19-28     John’s Testimony – About Himself

As noted earlier [verses 6-8], John was essentially the one who bore witness, who had testified 

• about Jesus, 
• about himself, 
• and about his relationship to Jesus. 

The gospel viewed his mission to baptised as quite secondary. 

The Role of John

It is difficult for most readers to approach the text without interference from the narratives of Mark, Matthew and Luke. The Fourth Gospel says little about John’s baptismal activities. It will not even state expressly whether John baptised Jesus, though it will speak of John’s witnessing the descent of God’s Spirit on Jesus (vv. 32-33). It does not identify John as “the Baptist”. It makes no reference to John’s calls for repentance or forgiveness of sins. 

John did not become a disciple of Jesus. Given John’s undoubted historical impact, the issue that needed to be faced by the Fourth Gospel was: Who was John? and, What was his relationship to Jesus? Beyond that, his baptismal ministry was secondary. The author’s insistence on these points may have reflected on-going disagreement, or at least close contact, with disciples of John. 

Throughout the narrative, the author would make frequent mention of the Jews. In this instance, he was referring to the Jewish leadership, centred on Jerusalem. These priests and Levites were an official delegation. Levites had a variety of responsibilities connected with the Jerusalem temple, including the policing role of maintaining law and order. Though the text at this stage had made no mention of the nature of John’s activities, the Jewish leadership was obviously concerned about the witness and activity of John, especially as it proceeded without their authorisation. Their question: Who are you? effectively meant: “What is your authority?” They saw themselves as the power brokers in Israel, and resented John’s activity.

The Hebrew word Messiah translates into the Greek word Christ. It means in general “an anointed one”, but referred in the context to a royal descendant of David, spoken of in the prophetic literature, and carrying a variety of different roles and expectations within the Jewish community. Some sectors of the community looked forward to a Christ/Messiah who would put an end to the Roman occupation of the country. John’s answer could not have been clearer.

The question presupposed the expectation of other Jews that Elijah would return to prepare the world for the eventual “Day of the Lord”. The prophet Malachi had looked forward to such an intervention:

(In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus had referred to John as “the Elijah who had to come” [Mark 9:11-13]. The Gospel of John showed no such appreciation.)

John’s two repeated and emphatic claims “I am not” stand in contrast to clear declarations of “I am” that Jesus would make later in the narrative. In Jesus’ case, his “I am” statements would hint at his identity centred in God: YHWH = I am..

The question originated in the promise made to the people centuries before by Moses:

The gospel narrative would proceed to suggest that it would be Jesus, not John, who would fulfill a Moses-like role.

The three questions serve to give some idea of expectations circulating in the volatile climate of the time. They reveal something of the emotionally charged, restless, even dangerous, climate in which Jesus would exercise his ministry.

The gospel showed a John who had no pretensions to grandeur. He was a voice, crying out in a moral, as much as a geographical, desert. Isaiah had referred to God, the “I am”, by the title Lord; John’s reference was to Jesus. As the Prologue had put it: He came in order to give witness, to testify about the light so that everyone might come to believe in it.  He was not the light, but to testify about the light [1:7-8].

Pharisees generally distanced themselves from the priests and Levites and strongly disagreed with them on numerous issues. This was a (second) group (or delegation), sent from the Pharisees.

Pharisees saw themselves as the moral and spiritual elite in Israel. Some of them resented John’s moving in on their domain.

John’s answer repeated themes already mentioned in the Prologue: the world did not recognise him, and The one coming after me came before me, because he was prior to me.

In stating that he was not worthy to undo the sandal thong (a role usually reserved to slaves), John sought to accentuate his insignificance in relation to Jesus.

In the narrative, this was John’s first public testimony to Jesus, though it said very little about the mystery of Jesus, other than his relative importance compared to John’s. At this stage, the focus centred on John.

The gospel referred to John’s baptising with water (with no reference to forgiveness, or even repentance). It made no comment on John’s purpose in baptising. For the author, John’s significance was not his baptising, but his witnessing to Jesus.

The reference to the location may have lent realism to the whole event. Had John chosen the location across the Jordan to give the sense that his ministry was preparing people for a definitive reentry into and repossession of their Promised Land – a new beginning? 

(Later in the narrative, the author would refer to another Bethany on the Jewish side of the border, closer to Jerusalem and not in Isaiah’s wilderness [11:18].)

Next >> John 1:29-34