But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.

If we say, From men, we fear the people. For all men counted John that he was a prophet indeed.

But if we shall say, from men; they feared the people: for all men counted John that he was a prophet indeed.

Or should we say, 'human?'" They were afraid of the people; for all agreed in holding John to have been really a Prophet.

But if we say, From men--they were in fear of the people, because all took John to be truly a prophet.

If we should say, 'From man' they feared the crowd, for all held John to really be a prophet.

If we say, 'From men,' we fear the people. For they all hold that John was a true prophet."

Yet can we say 'human'?" They were afraid of the people, for everyone regarded John as undoubtedly a prophet.

They feared the people - Or rather, We fear, etc. Instead of εφοβουντο, they feared; the Codex Bezae, seven others, later Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Vulgate, and all the Itala, read φοβουμεν, or φοβουμεθα. The common reading appearing to me quite improper.
We fear the people. Εαν, if, before ειπωμεν, we shall say, is omitted by ABCEFGHLS, and more than fifty others. Bengel leaves it out of the text, and puts a note of interrogation after Εξ ανθρωπων; and then the whole passage reads thus: But shall we say, Of men? They feared the people, etc. This change renders the adoption of φοβουμεν, we fear, unnecessary. Several critics prefer this mode of distinguishing the text. However the critics may be puzzled with the text, the scribes, chief priests, and elders were worse puzzled with our Lord's question. They must convict themselves or tell a most palpable falsehood. - They told the lie, and so escaped for the present.
1. Envy, malice, and double dealing have always a difficult part to act, and are ultimately confounded by their own projects and ruined by their own operations. On the other hand, simplicity and sincerity are not obliged to use a mask, but always walk in a plain way.
2. The case of the barren fig-tree which our Lord cursed has been pitifully misunderstood and misapplied. The whole account of this transaction, as stated above, I believe to be correct; it is so much in our Lord's usual manner that the propriety of it will scarcely be doubted. He was ever acting the part of the philosopher, moralist, and divine, as well as that of the Savior of sinners. In his hand, every providential occurrence and every object of nature, became a means of instruction: the stones of the desert, the lilies of the field, the fowls of heaven, the beasts of the forest, fruitful and unfruitful trees, with every ordinary occurrence, were so many grand texts, from which he preached the most illuminating and impressive sermons, for the instruction and salvation of his audience. This wisdom and condescension cannot be sufficiently admired. But shall the example of the fruitless fig tree be lost on us as well as on the Jews? God forbid! Let us therefore take heed, lest having been so long unfruitful, God should say, Let no fruit appear on thee hereafter for ever! and in consequence of this, we wither and die away! See Clarke on Mark 11:27 (note).

(6) But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all [men] counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.
(6) The reward of their evil conscience is to be afraid of those who should have been afraid of them.

But if we shall say, of men,.... That John's baptism was an human invention, and he had no authority from God to preach and administer it,
they feared the people; lest being enraged thereby they should, at once, rise up, and destroy them:
for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed; a real prophet, one truly sent from God, and had his commission and credentials from him: this was the general sentiment of the people; See Gill on Matthew 21:26.