Comentarios bíblicos

Preface to John

John, the writer of this Gospel, was the son of Zebedee and Salome; compare Matthew 27:56 with Mark 15:40-41. His father was a fisherman of Galilee, though it would appear that he was not destitute of property, and was not in the lowest condition of life. He had hired men in his employ, Mark 1:20. Salome is described as one who attended our Saviour in his travels, and ministered to his needs, Matthew 27:55; Mark 15:41. Also, John was known to Caiaphas, the high priest John 18:15. On the cross, Jesus commended his own mother (Mary) to John, and he took her into his own home John 19:26-27, with whom, history informs us, she lived until her death, about 15 years after the crucifixion of Christ. From all this it would seem not improbable that John had some property, and was better known than any of the other apostles.

John was the youngest of the apostles when called by Jesus, and John 54ed to the greatest age; he is the only one who is supposed to have died a peaceful death. He was called to be a follower of Jesus while engaged with his father and his older brother James mending their nets at Lake Tiberias, Matthew 4:21; Mark 1:19; Luke 5:10.

John was admitted by our Saviour to special favor and friendship. One of the ancient fathers (Theophylact) says that he was related to him. "Joseph," he says, "had seven children by a former wife, four sons and three daughters, Martha, Esther, and Salome, whose son was John. Therefore, Salome was reckoned our Lord's sister, and John was his nephew." If this was the case, it may explain the reason why James and John sought and expected the first places in his kingdom, Matthew 20:20-21. These may also possibly be the persons who were called our Lord's "brethren" and "sisters," Matthew 13:55-56. This may also explain the reason why our Saviour committed his mother to the care of John on the cross, John 19:27.

The two brothers, James and John, with Peter, were admitted to peculiar favors by our Lord several times. They were the only disciples who were permitted to be present at the raising of the daughter of Jairus, Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51. Only they were permitted to attend the Saviour to the mount where he was transfigured, Matthew 17:1; Mark 9:2. The same three were permitted to be present at his sufferings in the garden of Gethsemane, Matthew 26:36-45; Mark 14:32-42. And, it was to these disciples, together with Andrew, to whom the Saviour specially addressed himself when he made known the desolations that were coming upon Jerusalem and Judea; compare Matthew 24:12; Mark 13:3-4. John was also admitted to special friendship with the Lord Jesus. Hence, he is mentioned as "that disciple whom Jesus loved" John 19:26, and he is represented John 13:23 as leaning upon his bosom at the institution of the Lord's Supper an evidence of unusual friendship. See the notes on that. Though the Redeemer was attached to all his disciples, yet there is no improbability in supposing that his disposition was congenial with that of the meek and amiable John - thus authorizing and settling the example of special friendships among Christians.

To John was committed the care of Mary, the mother of Jesus. After the ascension of Christ he remained some time at Jerusalem, Acts 1:14; Acts 3:1; Acts 4:13. John is also mentioned as having been sent down to Samaria to preach the gospel there with Peter Acts 8:14-25; and from Acts 15 it appears that he was present at the council at Jerusalem in 49 or 50 a.d. All this agrees with what is said by Eusebius, that he lived at Jerusalem until the death of Mary, 15 years after the crucifixion of Christ. Until this time it is probable that he had not been engaged in preaching the gospel among the Gentiles.

At what time he first went among the Gentiles to preach the gospel is not certainly known. It has been commonly supposed that he resided in Judea and the neighborhood until the war broke out with the Romans, and that he came into Asia Minor about the year 69 or 70 a.d. It is clear that he was not at Ephesus at the time that Paul visited those regions, since in all the travels of Paul and Luke there is no mention made of John.

Ecclesiastical history informs us that he spent the latter part of his life in Asia Minor, and that he resided chiefly at Ephesus, the chief city of that country. Of his residence in Ephesus little is known with certainty. In the latter part of his life he was banished to Patmos, a small desolate island in the Aegean Sea, about 20 miles in circumference. This is commonly supposed to have been during the persecution of Domitian, in the latter part of his reign. Domitian died 96 a.d. It is probable that he returned soon after that, in the reign of the Emperor Trajan. On that island he wrote the Book of Revelation. See the notes at Revelation 1:9. After his return from Patmos he lived peaceably at Ephesus until his death, which is supposed to have occurred not long afterward. He was buried at Ephesus; and it has been commonly thought that he was the only one of the apostles who did not suffer martyrdom. It is evident that he lived to a very advanced period of life. Indeed we do not know his age when Christ called him to follow him, but we cannot suppose that it was less than 25 or 30. If so, he must have been not far from 100 years old when he died.

Many anecdotes are related of him while he remained at Ephesus, but there is no sufficient evidence of their truth. Some have said that he was taken to Rome in a time of persecution and thrown into a caldron of boiling oil, and came out uninjured. It has been said also that, going into a bath one day at Ephesus, he perceived the presence of Cerinthus, who denied the divinity of the Saviour, and that he fled from him hastily, to express his disapproval of Cerinthus' doctrine. It is also said, and of this there can be no doubt, that during his latter years he was not able to make a long discourse. He was carried to the assembly, and was accustomed to say nothing but this: "Little children, love one another." At length his disciples asked him why he always dwelt upon the same thing. He replied, "Because it is the Lord's command; and if this is done, it is sufficient"

Learned men have been much divided about the time when this Gospel was written. Wetstein supposed that it was written just after our Saviour's ascension; Mill and LeClerc, that it was written in 97 a.d.; Dr. Lardner, that it was about the year 68 a.d., just before the destruction of Jerusalem. The common opinion is that it was written at Ephesus after his return from Patmos, and of course as late as the year 97 or 98 a.d. Nothing can be determined with certainty on the subject, and it is a matter of very little consequence.

There is no doubt that it was written by John. This is abundantly confirmed by the ancient fathers, and was not questioned by Celsus, Porphyry, or Julian, the most acute enemies of revelation in the early ages. It has never been extensively questioned to have been the work of John, and is one of the books of the New Testament whose canonical authority was never disputed. See Lardner, or Paley's "Evidences."

The design of writing it is stated by John himself in John 20:31. It was to show that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, and that those who believed might have life through his name. "This design is kept in view through the whole Gospel, and should be remembered in our attempts to explain it." Various attempts have been made to show that he wrote it to confute the followers of Cerinthus and the Gnostics, but no satisfactory evidence of such a design has been furnished.

As John wrote after the other evangelists, he has recorded many things which they omitted. He dwells much more fully than they do on the divine character of Jesus. John relates many things pertaining to the early part of Jesus' ministry which they had omitted. He records many more of Christ's discourses than they have done, and particularly the interesting discourse at the institution of the Supper. See John 14-17.

It has been remarked that there are evidences in this Gospel that it was not written for the Jews. The author explains words and customs which to a Jew would have needed no explanation. See John 1:38, John 1:41; John 5:1-2; John 7:2; John 4:9. The style in the Greek indicates that he was an unlearned man. It is simple, plain, unpolished, such as we should suppose would be used by one in his circumstances. At the same time, it is dignified, containing pure and profound sentiments, and is on many accounts the most difficult of all the books of the New Testament to interpret. It contains more about Christ, his person, design, and work, than any of the other Gospels. The other evangelists were employed more in recording the miracles, and giving external evidence of the divine mission of Jesus. John is employed chiefly in telling us what Christ was, and what his unique doctrine was. His aim was to show:

1. that Jesus was the Messiah.

2. to show, "from the words of Jesus himself," what the Messiah was.

The other evangelists only record Jesus' parables, his miracles, his debates with the Scribes and Pharisees; John records chiefly Jesus' discourses about himself. If anyone wishes to learn the true. doctrine respecting the "Messiah, the Son of God," expressed in simple language, but with most sublime conceptions; to learn the true nature and character of God, and the way of approach to his mercy-seat; to see the true nature of Christian piety, or the source and character of religious consolation; to have perpetually before him the purest model of character the world has seen, and to contemplate the purest precepts that have ever been delivered to man, he cannot do it better than by a prayerful study of the Gospel by John. It may be added that this Gospel is of itself proof that cannot be overthrown of the truth of revelation. John was a fisherman, unhonored and unlearned, Acts 4:13. What man in that rank of life now could compose a book like this? Can it be conceived that any man of that rank, unless under the influence of inspiration, could conceive notions of God so sublime, could present views of morals so pure and could draw a character so inimitably lovely and pure as that of Jesus Christ? To ask these questions is to answer them. And this Gospel will stand to the end of time as an unanswerable demonstration that the fisherman who wrote it was under a superhuman guidance, and was, according to the promise that he has recorded (John 16:13; compare John 14:26), "guided into all truth." It will also remain as an unanswerable proof that the character which he has described the character of the Lord Jesus - was real. It is a perfect character. It does not have one flaw.

How has this happened? The attempt has often been made to draw a perfect character - and as often, in every other instance, failed. How is it, when Homer and Virgil, and the ancient historians, have all failed to describe a perfect character, with the purest models before them, and with all the aid of imagination, that in every instance they have failed? How is it that this has at last been accomplished only by a Jewish fisherman? The difficulty is vastly increased if another idea is borne in mind. John describes one whom he believed to have a divine nature, John 1:1. It is an attempt to describe "God in human nature," or to show how the Divine Being acts when united with man, or when appearing in human form. And the description is complete. There is not a word expressed by the Lord Jesus, or an emotion ascribed to him that is inconsistent with such a supposition. But this same attempt was often made, and as often failed. Homer and Virgil, and all the ancient poets, have undertaken to show what the gods would be if they came down and conversed with man. And what were they? What were Jupiter, and Juno, and Venus, and Mars, and Vulcan? Beings of lust, and envy, and contention, and blood. How has it happened that the only successful account which has been given of the divine nature united with the human, and of living and acting as became such a union, has been given by a Jewish fisherman? How, unless the character was real, and the writer under a guidance far superior to the genius of Homer and the imagination of Virgil - the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

In the beginning - This expression is used also in Genesis 1:1. John evidently has allusion here to that place, and he means to apply to "the Word" an expression which is there applied "to God." In both places it clearly means before creation, before the world was made, when as yet there was nothing. The meaning is: that the "Word" had an existence before the world was created. This is not spoken of the man Jesus, but of that which "became" a man, or was incarnate, John 1:14. The Hebrews, by expressions like this, commonly denoted eternity. Thus. the eternity of God is described Psalm 90:2; "Before the mountains were brought forth, etc.;" and eternity is commonly expressed by the phrase, before the foundation of the world." Whatever is meant by the term "Word," it is clear that it had an existence before "creation." It is not, then, a "creature" or created being, and must be, therefore, uncreated and eternal. There is only one Being that is uncreated, and Jesus must be therefore divine. Compare the Saviour's own declarations respecting himself in the following places: John 8:58; John 17:5; John 6:62; John 3:13; John 6:46; John 8:14; John 16:28.

Was the Word - Greek, "was the λόγος Logos." This name is given to him who afterward became "flesh," or was incarnate (John 1:14 - that is, to the Messiah. Whatever is meant by it, therefore, is applicable to the Lord Jesus Christ. There have been many opinions about the reason why this name was given to the Son of God. It is unnecessary to repeat those opinions. The opinion which seems most plausible may be expressed as follows:

1. A "word" is that by which we communicate our will; by which we convey our thoughts; or by which we issue commands the medium of communication with others.

2. The Son of God may be called "the Word," because he is the medium by which God promulgates His will and issues His commandments. See Hebrews 1:1-3.

3. This term was in use before the time of John.

(a) It was used in the Aramaic translation of the Old Testament, as, "e. g.," Isaiah 45:12; "I have made the earth, and created man upon it." In the Aramaic it is, "I, 'by my word,' have made," etc. Isaiah 48:13; "mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth." In the Aramaic, "'By my word' I have founded the earth." And so in many other places.

(b) This term was used by the Jews as applicable to the Messiah. In their writings he was commonly known by the term "Mimra" - that is, "Word;" and no small part of the interpositions of God in defense of the Jewish nation were declared to be by "the Word of God." Thus, in their Targum on Deuteronomy 26:17-18, it is said, "Ye have appointed the word of God a king over you this day, that he may be your God."

(c) The term was used by the Jews who were scattered among the Gentiles, and especially those who were conversant with the Greek philosophy.

(d) The term was used by the followers of Plato among the Greeks, to denote the Second Person of the Trinity. The Greek term νοῦς nous or "mind," was commonly given to this second person, but it was said that this nous was "the word" or "reason" of the First Person of the Trinity. The term was therefore extensively in use among the Jews and Gentiles before John wrote his Gospel, and it was certain that it would be applied to the Second Person of the Trinity by Christians. whether converted from Judaism or Paganism. It was important, therefore, that the meaning of the term should be settled by an inspired man, and accordingly John, in the commencement of his Gospel, is at much pains to state clearly what is the true doctrine respecting the λόγος Logos, or Word. It is possible, also, that the doctrines of the Gnostics had begun to spread in the time of John. They were an Oriental sect, and held that the λόγος Logos or "Word" was one of the "Aeones" that had been created, and that this one had been united to the man Jesus. If that doctrine had begun then to prevail, it was of the more importance for John to settle the truth in regard to the rank of the Logos or Word. This he has done in such a way that there need be no doubt about its meaning.

Was with God - This expression denotes friendship or intimacy. Compare Mark 9:19. John affirms that he was "with God" in the beginning - that is, before the world was made. It implies, therefore, that he was partaker of the divine glory; that he was blessed and happy with God. It proves that he was intimately united with the Father, so as to partake of his glory and to be appropriately called by the name God. He has himself explained it. See John 17:5; "And now, O Father, glorify thou we with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." See also John 1:18; "No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." See also John 3:13; "The Son of man, which is in heaven." Compare Philippians 2:6-7.

Was God - In the previous phrase John had said that the Word was "with God." Lest it should be supposed that he was a different and inferior being, here John states that "he was God." There is no more unequivocal declaration in the Bible than this, and there could be no stronger proof that the sacred writer meant to affirm that the Son of God was equal with the Father; because:

1. There is no doubt that by the λόγος Logos is meant Jesus Christ.

2. This is not an "attribute" or quality of God, but is a real subsistence, for it is said that the λόγος Logos was made flesh σάρξ sarx - that is, became a human being.

3. There is no variation here in the manuscripts, and critics have observed that the Greek will bear no other construction than what is expressed in our translation - that the Word "was God."

4. There is no evidence that John intended to use the word "God" in an inferior sense. It is not "the Word was a god," or "the Word was 'like God,'" but the Word "was God." He had just used the word "God" as evidently applicable to Yahweh, the true God; and it is absurd to suppose that he would in the same verse, and without any indication that he was using the word in an inferior sense, employ it to denote a being altogether inferior to the true God.

5. The name "God" is elsewhere given to him, showing that he is the supreme God. See Romans 9:5; Hebrews 1:8, Hebrews 1:10, Hebrews 1:12; 1 John 5:20; John 20:28.

The meaning of this important verse may then be thus summed up:

1. The name λόγος Logos, or Word, is given to Christ in reference to his becoming the Teacher or Instructor of mankind; the medium of communication between God and man.

2. The name was in use at the time of John, and it was his design to state the correct doctrine respecting the λόγος Logos.

3. The "Word," or λόγος Logos, existed "before creation" - of course was not a "creature," and must have been, therefore, from eternity.

4. He was "with God" - that is, he was united to him in a most intimate and close union before the creation; and, as it could not be said that God was "with himself," it follows that the λόγος Logos was in some sense distinct from God, or that there was a distinction between the Father and the Son. When we say that one is "with another," we imply that there is some sort of distinction between them.

5. Yet, lest it should be supposed that he was a "different" and "inferior" being - a creature - he affirms that he was God - that is, was equal with the Father.

This is the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity:

1. that the second person is in some sense "distinct" from the first.

2. that he is intimately united with the first person in essence, so that there are not two or more Gods.

3. that the second person may be called by the same name; has the same attributes; performs the same works; and is entitled to the same honors with the first, and that therefore he is "the same in substance, and equal in power and glory," with God.

The same - The Word, or the λόγος Logos.

Was in the beginning with God - This seems to be a repetition of what was said in the first verse; but it is stated over again to "guard the doctrine," and to prevent the possibility of a mistake. John had said that he existed before the creation, and that he was "with God;" but he had not said in the first verse "that the union with God existed in the beginning." He now expresses that idea, and assures us that that union was not one which was commenced in time, and which might be, therefore, a mere union of feeling, or a compact, like that between any other beings, but was one which existed in eternity, and which was therefore a union of nature or essence.

All things - The universe. The expression cannot be limited to any part of the universe. It appropriately expresses everything which exists - all the vast masses of material worlds, and all the animals and things, great or small, that compose those worlds. See Revelation 4:11; Hebrews 1:2; Colossians 1:16.

Were made - The original word is from the verb "to be," and signifies "were" by him; but it expresses the idea of creation here. It does not alter the sense whether it is said "'were' by him," or "were 'created' by him." The word is often used in the sense of "creating," or forming from nothing. See James 3:9; and Genesis 2:4; Isaiah 48:7; in the Septuagint.

By him - In this place it is affirmed that "creation" was effected by "the Word," or the Son of God. In Genesis 1:1, it is said that the Being who created the heavens and the earth was God. In Psalm 102:25-28, this work is ascribed to Yahweh. The "Word," or the Son of God, is therefore appropriately called "God." The work of "creation" is uniformly ascribed in the Scriptures to the Second Person of the Trinity. See Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2, Hebrews 1:10. By this is meant, evidently, that he was the agent, or the efficient cause, by which the universe was made. There is no higher proof of omnipotence than the work of creation; and, hence, God often appeals to that work to prove that he is the true God, in opposition to idols. See Isaiah 40:18-28; Jeremiah 10:3-16; Psalm 24:2; Psalm 39:11; Proverbs 3:19. It is absurd to say that God can invest a creature with omnipotence. If He can make a creature omnipotent, He can make him omniscient, and can in the same way make him omnipresent, and infinitely wise and good; that is, He can invest a creature with all His own attributes, or make another being like Himself, or, which is the same thing, there could be two Gods, or as many Gods as He should choose to make. But this is absurd! The Being, therefore, that "created" all things must be divine; and, since this work is ascribed to Jesus Christ, and as it is uniformly in the Scriptures declared to be the work of God, Jesus Christ is therefore equal with the Father.

Without him - Without his agency; his notice; the exertion of his power. Compare Matthew 10:29. This is a strong way of speaking, designed to confirm, beyond the possibility of doubt, what he had just said. He says, therefore, in general, that all things were made by Christ. In this part of the verse he shuts out all doubt, and affirms that there was "no exception;" that there was not a single thing, however minute or unimportant, which was not made by him. In this way, he confirms what he said in the first verse. Christ was not merely called God, but he did the works of God, and therefore the name is used in its proper sense as implying supreme divinity. To this same test Jesus himself appealed as proving that he was divine. John 10:37, "if I do not the works of my Father, believe me not." John 5:17, "my Father worketh hitherto, and I work."

In him was life - The evangelist had just affirmed John 5:3 that by the λόγος Logos or "Word" the world was originally created. One part of that creation consisted "in breathing into man the breath of life," Genesis 2:7. God is declared to be "life," or the "living" God, because he is the source or fountain of life. This attribute is here ascribed to Jesus Christ. He not merely made the material worlds, but he also gave "life." He was the agent by which the vegetable world became animated; by which brutes live; and by which man became a living soul, or was endowed with immortality. This was a "higher" proof that the "Word was God," than the creation of the material worlds; but there is another sense in which he was "life." The "new creation," or the renovation of man and his restoration from a state of sin, is often compared with the "first creation;" and as the λόγος Logos was the source of "life" then, so, in a similar but higher sense, he is the source of "life" to the soul dead in trespasses and sins, Ephesians 2:1. And it is probably in reference to this that he is so often called "life" in the writings of John. "For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in him self," John 5:26; "He giveth life unto the world," John 6:33; "I am the resurrection and the life," John 11:25; "This is the true God and eternal life," John 5:20. See also 1 John 1:1-2; 1 John 5:11; Acts 3:15; Colossians 3:4. The meaning is: that he is the source or the fountain of both natural and spiritual life. Of course he has the attributes of God.

The life was the light of men - "Light" is that by which we see objects distinctly. The light of the sun enables us to discern the form, the distance, the magnitude, and the relation of objects, and prevents the perplexities and dangers which result from a state of darkness. Light is in all languages, therefore, put for "knowledge" - for whatever enables us to discern our duty, and that saves us from the evils of ignorance and error. "Whatsoever doth make manifest is light," Ephesians 5:13. See Isaiah 8:20; Isaiah 9:2. The Messiah was predicted as the "light" of the world, Isaiah 9:2, compared with Matthew 4:15-16; Isaiah 60:1. See John 8:12; "I am the light of the world;" John 12:35-36, John 12:46; "I am come a light into the world." The meaning is, that the λόγος Logos or Word of God is the "instructor or teacher" of mankind. This was done before his advent by his direct agency in giving man reason or understanding, and in giving his law, for the "law was ordained by angels 'in the hand of a mediator'" Galatians 3:19; after his advent by his personal ministry when on earth, by his Spirit John 14:16, John 14:26, and by his ministers since, Ephesians 4:11; 1 Corinthians 12:28.

The light shineth in darkness - Darkness, in the Bible, commonly denotes ignorance, guilt, or misery. See Isaiah 9:1-2; Matthew 4:16; Acts 26:18; Ephesians 5:8, Ephesians 5:11; Romans 13:12. It refers here to a wicked and ignorant people. When it is said that "the light shineth in darkness," it is meant that the Lord Jesus came to teach an ignorant, benighted, and wicked world. This has always been the case. It was so when he sent his prophets; so during his own ministry; and so in every age since. His efforts to enlighten and save men have been like light struggling to penetrate a thick, dense cloud; and though a few rays may pierce the gloom, yet the great mass is still an impenetrable shade.

Comprehended it not - This word means "admitted" it not, or "received" it not. The word "comprehend," with us, means to "understand." This is not the meaning of the original. The darkness did not "receive" or "admit" the rays of light; the shades were so thick that the light could not penetrate them; or, to drop the figure, men were so ignorant, so guilty, so debased, that they did not appreciate the value of his instructions; they despised and rejected him. And so it is still. The great mass of men, sunk in sin, will not receive his teachings, and be enlightened and saved by him. Sin always blinds the mind to the beauty and excellency of the character of the Lord Jesus. It indisposes the mind to receive his instructions, just as "darkness" has no affinity for "light;" and if the one exists, the other must be displaced.

A man sent from God - See Matthew 3. The evangelist proceeds now to show that John the Baptist was not the Messiah and to state the true nature of his office. Many had supposed that he was the Christ, but this opinion he corrects; yet he admits that he was "sent from God" - that he was divinely commissioned. Though he denied that he was "the Messiah," yet he did not deny that he was sent from or by heaven on an important errand to human beings. Some have supposed that the sole design of this gospel was to show that John the Baptist was not the Messiah. Though there is no foundation for this opinion, yet there is no doubt that one object was to show this. The main design was to show that "Jesus was the Christ," John 20:31. To do this, it was proper, in the beginning, to prove that "John" was not the Messiah; and this might have been at that time an important object. John made many disciples, Matthew 3:5. Many persons supposed that he might be the Messiah, Luke 3:15; John 1:19. "Many of these disciples of John remained" at Ephesus, "the very place where John is supposed to have written this gospel, long after the ascension of Jesus," Acts 19:1-3. It is not improbable that there might have been many others who adhered to John, and perhaps many who supposed that he was the Messiah. On these accounts it was important for the evangelist to show that John "was not the Christ," and to show, also, that he, who was extensively admitted to be a prophet, was an important "witness" to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. The evangelist in the first four verses stated that "the Word" was divine; he now proceeds to state the proof that he was a "man," and was the Messiah. The first evidence adduced is the testimony of John the Baptist.

For a witness - To give testimony. He came to prepare the minds of the people to receive him Matthew 3; Luke 3; to lead them by repentance to God; and to point out the Messiah to Israel when he came, John 1:31.

Of the Light - That is, of the Messiah. Compare Isaiah 60:1.

That all men ... - It was the object of John's testimony that all people might believe. He designed to prepare them for it; to announce that the Messiah was about to come, to direct the minds of men to him, and thus to prepare them to believe on him when he came. Thus, he baptized them, saying "That they should believe on him who should come after him" Acts 19:4, and thus he produced a very general expectation that the Messiah was about to come. The testimony of John was especially valuable on the following accounts:

1. It was made when he had no personal acquaintance with Jesus of Nazareth, and of course there could have been no collusion or agreement to deceive them, John 1:31.

2. It was sufficiently long before he came to excite general attention, and to fix the mind on it.

3. It was that of a man acknowledged by all to be a prophet of God - "for all men held John to be a prophet," Matthew 21:26.

4. It was "for the express purpose" of declaring beforehand that he was about to appear.

5. It was "disinterested."

He was himself extremely popular. Many were disposed to receive him as the Messiah. It was evidently in his "power" to form a large party, and to be regarded extensively as the Christ. This was the highest honor to which a Jew could aspire; and it shows the value of John's testimony, that he was willing to lay all his honors at the feet of Jesus, and to acknowledge that he was unworthy to perform for him the office of the humblest servant, Matthew 3:11.

Through him - Through John, or by means of his testimony.

Was not that Light - Was not "the Messiah." This is an explicit declaration designed to satisfy the disciples of John. The evidence that he was not the Messiah he states in the following verses.

From the conduct of John here we may learn,

1. The duty of laying all our honors at the feet of Jesus.

2. As John came that all might believe, so it is no less true of the ministry of Jesus himself. He came for a similar purpose, and we may all, therefore, trust in him for salvation.

3. We should not rely too much on ministers of the gospel. They cannot save us any more than John could; and their office, as his was, is simply to direct people "to the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world."