But if we say, of men: the whole people will stone us. For they are persuaded that John was a prophet.
εαν δε ειπωμεν εξ ανθρωπων πας ο λαος καταλιθασει ημας πεπεισμενος γαρ εστιν ιωαννην προφητην ειναι
7 Church Fathers comment on this verse
By posing this question, He silences their objections and makes it evident that if they could not accept the testimony of a prophet like John, whom they regarded as superior, how could they trust the authority behind His responses? Regardless of what He proclaimed, they had the capability to twist and mock it, much like they had scorned the messages of John, who held significant esteem among them.
Observe the profound malice of the Pharisees: they turn away from the truth; they shun the light; they lack a dread of sin. In fact, they are fearful of proclaiming the truth, worried about being questioned, “Why did you not have faith in Him?” Yet, they do not condemn the Forerunner; they do not fear God, but rather they fear the people. Consequently, they hide the truth and declare, “We are unaware.”
The Sanhedrin, having already resolved to condemn Him to death, sought merely to create an illusion of fairness while looking for a means to bring accusations against Him, whether on religious or political grounds. They aimed to extract statements from His teachings that could lead to charges of ecclesiastical misconduct or suspicions of political ideology. Upon seeing the Lord again in the temple, they swiftly, through their own ranks, inquired about the authority by which He acted. This inquiry likely encompassed not just His deeds in the temple but all aspects of His ministry as the Messiah. Aware of their hidden agendas, the Lord refrained from straightforwardly responding and instead posed a challenging question to them: Who granted John the authority for his actions?
Was his calling of human origin or Divine? Had they acknowledged the latter, they would have feared the unfavorable implications arising from their own thoughts. However, they were hesitant to reject it outright, as that could incite the populace, who revered John as a prophet, against them. Thus, they replied noncommittally, "We do not know," and the Lord deemed it fitting to mirror their evasive tone in response. They ought to have answered truthfully; had they done so, they might have been guided to resolve the very question they had posed.
When Jesus entered the temple to teach on Tuesday, His discussions with the people were interrupted by the chief priests and scribes. They approached Him as a delegation from the Sanhedrin, similar to the envoy that had come to John the Baptist (John 1:19, etc.). They inquired about the source of His authority—was it of divine origin or merely human? They questioned who conferred this authority upon Him, seeking clarity on His ordination to this role. In response, Jesus posed a question of His own: “Was John a prophet or an impostor?” Recognizing John as a true prophet sent from God, His inquiry indirectly revealed His own identity, for John had testified about Jesus as the Messiah.
The chief priests and scribes were aware of this implication and thus refrained from providing a straightforward response. However, they also hesitated to deny it, as they spoke in the presence of the crowd who revered John as a prophet. Consequently, they replied, “We do not know.” In turn, Jesus declined to provide a direct answer to their question.
If we assert that John was simply a regular individual and that his teachings and baptism lacked any divine essence, we might face another peril: the crowd believes John to be a prophet and could turn against us if we provide such a response.
There was no way it could be dismissed as irrelevant. John openly and clearly testified about Jesus, acknowledging Him, in front of the most esteemed members of the Sanhedrin, not merely as a prophet, but as a prophet surpassing all others, identifying Him as the Messiah. Did they accept this testimony or not? It is evident that Christ had the right to demand an answer to this inquiry from them before He responded to them. Yet, they found themselves unable—or perhaps unwilling—to provide an answer. He had them cornered. They could not say 'from heaven,' since they dismissed that notion; neither could they claim 'from men,' for their belief in John was so strong and unanimous, as noted even by Josephus Flavius, that to openly reject it would have endangered their personal safety.
Thus, the leaders of Israel found themselves in the humiliating position of having to say, 'We do not know.' Such a response from those charged with studying the law and faith, and teaching it to the people, was utterly disgraceful, especially in front of a crowd. However, Christ, in His boundless grace, chose not to press them further but simply replied, 'And I will not tell you by what authority I do this,' before continuing to instruct the people.
“'All the people will stone us'” reflects heightened concern, as seen more prominently in Hebrews, Matthew, and Mark, illustrating the anxiety stemming from the people's anger. The leaders, including the chief priests, scribes, and elders, recognized the deep reverence the people held for the prophetic work of John the Baptist. They feared that by dismissing this prophetic voice, they would provoke a severe backlash from the populace, who might disregard the fact that their authority to impose the death penalty had been revoked. This would lead to arbitrary punishment, much like the unjust stoning of the first martyr Stephen, condemned for alleged blasphemy.
Passages read together with this verse.
Greek text, 16 words with lemma, transliteration and Strong’s number. Tap to expand.
THEOSIS