Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 1:8
He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light.
8. not that Light ] Better, not the Light. The Baptist was not the Light, but ‘the lamp that is lighted and shineth’ (see on Joh 5:35). He was lumen illuminatum, not lumen illuminans. At the close of the first century it was still necessary for S. John to insist on this. At Ephesus, where this Gospel was written, S. Paul in his third missionary journey had found disciples still resting in ‘John’s baptism,’ Act 19:1-6. ‘By lamp-light we may advance to the day’ (Augustine).
but was sent to ‘was sent’ is not in the Greek. ‘But (in order) that’ is an elliptical phrase occurring several times in this Gospel. It calls attention to the Divine purpose. Comp. Joh 9:3, Joh 13:18, Joh 14:31, Joh 15:25.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Joh 1:8
He was not that Light
The personality of the Baptist
I.
John the Baptist was WELL BORN. The best Jewish blood flowed in his veins. Hereditary forces are the conservative forces of society. Voice, stature, longevity, mental and moral qualities descend from one generation to another. It is not true, however, that inherited tendencies necessarily make character. If this were so there could be no advance or retrogression. A child could be no better, no worse than his parent. Every mind is an original power for good or evil. Still, be thankful, Timothy, that Eunice was your mother; John, that Zacharias and Elizabeth were your parents.
II. He was WELL TRAINED. Jewish homes did not let go the training of children. Training tells more than birth in formation of character. Faith, reverence, obedience, courage, humility, are elements of a soldierly training. Let a child see love illustrated at home, and if he cannot be scolded into the Lords ranks he may be won.
III. He was A MAN OF COURAGE (Mat 3:1-10). Witness his treatment of the dominant Jewish parties and Herod. This was a real quality, not an affectation. Ask for no trimmers in the pulpit. In the long run the brave man is popular.
IV. He was A MAN OF HUMILITY (verses 29-36). How hard for one preacher to be overshadowed by another, not in some remote town, but round the corner! Let every man do his level best, and, if beaten honourably, rejoice in anothers success.
V. He was A MAN OF DOUBT. But he took his doubts to Jesus, and had them resolved. Doubter, let Jesus speak for Himself. (B. J. Hoadley.)
The danger of mistaking John for Christ
To mistake the forerunner for the Messiah, the Baptist for the Christ, the man for the Lord, was not the first characteristic blunder of the Church against her Divine Head. It repeated Eves mistake of her firstborn for the firstborn of God. If we had not seen the subsequent errors of the Church, we should have been almost tempted to count Johns statement unnecessary, perhaps gratuitous, that the Baptist was not that Light. The only true relation of any ordinance is that of testimony to Christ. At the point where an ordinance ceases to testify of Christ, there it begins to betray Him. Then the betrayal of a Judas is followed by the denial of a Peter. The agency of priestcraft is at the bottom in either case. A false apostle sells, false priests buy, and Christ is crucified between them. The symbol of the thirty pieces of silver is, the nominal Christian barters to the nominal Jew the Divine reality. And so it has been in all ages and with every heresy. You cannot reconcile priestcraft and Christ-craft: they are the antagonism of God and mammon. The process is in every case essentially the same, confounding the testifier with the thing testified. Men began first to mingle representative rites with spiritual realities, then inseparably to unite them, and lastly to identify forms with the spiritual facts which they symbolized. Hence arose the transubstantiation of one sacrament, and the transpiritualism of the other. Transubstantiation, which identifies the Lords body with the bread and wine which He appointed as its symbolic testifiers, and transpiritualism, which identifies the baptism of the Spirit with that of water, are cognate heresies. The ordinance, in either case, displacing the Ordainer, the form neutralizing the fact, and compelling us to protest against sacramentalism on behalf of the sacraments, as well as on the part of the Saviour, that sacramental elements are not that Light, but sent to bear witness of that Light. (J. B. Owen, M. A.)
The secondary light
The brightest light which the hand of man can enkindle is instantly paled when the sun shineth in his strength. Beautiful indeed is that secondary light when shining alone, and not beautiful only, but precious, exceedingly to men who without it would be in darkness; yet, could it speak, it would say, I am but a spark of another fire; your admiration of my splendour will cease when you see the sun. Such is the speech of the most luminous men. Our light is lunar, not solar, or solar only because Christ is in us; and according to the measure of our capacity He sheds His glory through our life. (J. Parker, D. D.)
A witness to the Light
He is content to claim for his master as for himself the noblest human work, to bear witness of that Light. No one may add to it; all may, in word and life, bear witness to it. Every discovery in science and advance in truth is a removal of some cloud which hides it from men; every noble character is bearing it about; every conquest of sin is extending it. It has been stored in mines of deepest thought in all ages. The heedless puss over the surface unconscious of it. The worlds benefactors are they who bring it forth to men as the light and warmth of the rays of the Sun of Righteousness. (H. W. Watkins, D. D.)
The exact position of John in relation to Christ
Just as when we see some object lit up by the suns beams, we are aware that the sun has risen, though we may not be able actually to see him ourselves; and just as a man, however weak may be his power of sight, at any rate is able to look at a mountain or tree shone upon by the sun, though he may not yet be able to look at the glorious luminary itself; so in like manner did John give light to those who as yet were not able to look at Christ, and through him, while he acknowledged that his light was that cast upon him by the rays of another, the shining and enlightening One Himself was perceived and recognized. (Augustine.)
Other witnesses to Christ besides St. John
Was the saying less true of Jeremiah preaching beside the temple that was to be desolate, of Ezekiel preaching by the river of Chebar? Was it less true of St. Peter on the day of Pentecost, of St. Paul at Antioch? Was it less true of Bernard, of Francis of Assisi, of Luther, of any man who in later days has awakened men out of the slumber of death? What can be said of each except this, The same came for a witness? What would each have said of himself but this, I am not that Light, but am come to bear witness of that Light? (F. D. Maurice.)
The true glory of John
John is something truly great, of vast merit, of exceeding grace, placed on a high eminence. Admire him we must, but how? as a mountain height, which, unless irradiated by the sun, abides in darkness. Therefore raise your thoughts to Him, who illumines this mountain top, elevated for the very purpose of first receiving the light, and so of imparting it to your eyes otherwise pained with so great a glare. John was a light lighted; Christ was a light-giving Light. (Augustine.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
He was not that Light: John the Baptist was a light, as all saints are light in the Lord, Eph 5:8; nay, in a peculiar sense our Saviour beareth him witness, that he was a burning and shining light; but he was not that Light before mentioned, Joh 1:5, that shineth in darkness; and again Joh 1:9 which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. John borrowed his light from that original Light; that Light was God, he was but a man sent from God. The men of the world are ordinarily in extremes, either wholly rejecting Gods ministers and witnesses, or else adoring them; as the world is concerned to take heed of the former, so the ministers of Christ are also highly concerned not to admit the latter. See Luk 7:33; Act 14:13,14; but both John here, and Paul there, were very cautious not to rob their Master of the honour due unto him alone.
But was sent to bear witness of that Light: John, as was said before, came only to bear witness of that Light, that he was come, and shined forth, and was the true Light, as it followeth.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
8. not that Light(See on Joh5:35). What a testimony to John to have to explain that “hewas not that Light!” Yet was he but a foil to set it off,his night-taper dwindling before the Dayspring from on high (Joh3:30).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
He was not that light,…. He was a light; he was the forerunner of the sun of righteousness, the “phosphorus” of the Gospel day; he had great light in him; he knew that the Messiah was ready to come, and declared it; and upon his baptism he knew him personally, and signified him to others: he had great light into the person and work of Christ; and into the way of salvation by him, and remission of sins through him; into the doctrines of faith in Christ, and of evangelical repentance towards God; and into the abolition of the legal Mosaic and Jewish dispensation; and was an instrument of giving light to others; yea, he was a burning and shining light, in whose light the Jews rejoiced, at least for a season: but then he was not that light, the word and wisdom of God; that uncreated light that dwelt with him from all eternity; nor that which was the light of men, from the creation; nor that light, which was of old promised to the saints and patriarchs of the Old Testament, and shone in the ordinances and predictions of that state; nor that fountain and giver of light, of every sort, to men; not that light in which is no darkness, and always shines; not that true light, or sun of righteousness, the Messiah, or that lightens every man that comes into the world:
but was sent to bear witness of that light; which is repeated, to distinguish him from that light; to show what he was sent for, and that he acted according to his mission; and to express the honourableness to his work.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
He (). “That one,” i.e. John. He was a light (Joh 5:35) as all believers are (Mt 5:14), but not “the light” ( ).
But came (‘). No verb in the Greek, to be supplied by repeating of verse 7. See similar ellipses in John 9:3; John 13:18; John 15:25. In Johannine fashion we have the final clause of verse 7 repeated.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1 ) “He was not that Light,” (ouk en ekemos to phos) “He was or existed not (as) that light,” himself. That is, John did not pose as the Savior, the Light of the world himself. He declared that Jesus Christ was that Light that was to come, and the Lamb of God that bears away, in His judgement, the sin of the world, Mat 4:16-17; Joh 1:29; Joh 1:36.
2) “But was sent to bear witness,” (all’hina marturese) “But he existed in order that he might witness,” or bear testimony, that Jesus was 1) That Light, 2) The Lamb of God, 3) and the Bridegroom, Joh 1:9; Joh 1:29; Joh 1:36; Joh 3:28-30.
3) “Of that Light.” (peri tou photos) “Concerning that light,” that He, Jesus, was more than just a prophet, as many took Him to be, Mat 14:5; Mat 21:26; Luk 20:6.
John was a light, but not The Light, (Jesus Christ) referred to nine times as The Light, in this gospel, Joh 1:35.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(8) He was not that Light, but was sent.It is necessary to repeat the statement of Johns position and work in an emphatic form. Now first for 400 years a great teacher had appeared in Israel. The events of his birth and life had excited the attention of the masses; his bold message, like the cry of another Elias, found its way in burning words to the slumbering hearts of men; and even from the least likely classes, from Pharisee and Sadducee, from publican and soldier, there came the hearts question, What shall we do? The extent of the religious revival does not impress us, because it passed into the greater which followed, but the statement of a publican living at the time is that Jerusalem, and all Juda, and all the region round about Jordan, went out to Him, and were baptized of Him in Jordan, confessing their sins (Mat. 3:5-6). But what was this power in their midst? Who could be the person uttering these more than human words? A comparison of Joh. 1:19-20 in this chapter with Luk. 3:15 shows a widespread opinion that he was at least possibly the Messiah. He himself with true greatness recognised the greater, but as in many a like case in after days, the followers had not all the leaders nobility of soul. We shall meet signs of this in Joh. 3:26; Joh. 4:1. We find traces of it in Mat. 9:14, &c. (see Note at this place), and even in Ephesus, as late as St. Pauls third missionary journey, we find certain disciples knowing nothing more than Johns baptism (Act. 19:1-6). It was at Ephesus that this Gospel was written and the existence of a body of such disciples may have led to the full statement in this verse made by one who had himself been among the Baptists earliest followers.
It was otherwise with the disciple who wrote these words. He is content to claim for his master as for himself the noblest human work, to bear witness of that Light. No one may add to it; all may, in word and life, bear witness to it. Every discovery in science and advance in truth is a removal of some cloud which hides it from men; every noble character is bearing it about; every conquest of sin is extending it. It has been stored in mines of deepest thought in all ages. The heedless pass over the surface unconscious of it. The worlds benefactors are they who bring it forth to men as the light and warmth of the rays of the Sun of Righteousness. (Comp. Joh. 5:35, and Note there.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
8. Witness of that Light The Logos, as incarnate, is now by the Evangelist identified as the living Light. We have, then, Jesus and John as the Light and its witness. The entire body of prophets and the whole Old Testament were indeed witnesses to this Light; but John, the last of the prophets, was the only living personal witness to the living and personal Light. The term Light here becomes personal, and is rightly commenced with a capital.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light, which was the true light, which lights every man coming into the world.’
The stress now is on the fact that John was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light. He pointed away from himself to Another. He was not himself ‘the Light’ in the fullest sense of the word (although Jesus would later say that ‘he was a burning and a shining light’ – Joh 5:35) because this coming light was unique, He would be the true and full light of God, ‘the light of the world’ (Joh 8:12). Thus he, John, could only point away from himself to the light Who was coming, that men may believe in Him. Indeed the whole emphasis concerning John the Baptiser in this Gospel is on him as a witness to Jesus Christ.
It is significant that John has to point out that John the Baptiser was not the light. In the time of Jesus and the early church there were many followers of John the Baptiser (compare Act 19:1-7), who followed John so intensely that they omitted to accept his witness and turn to Jesus. In a sense they were rivals to the early church. John wants men to see that if they follow the teaching of John it can only lead them to Jesus. But this very much emphasises the centrality of Hebrew thought in this passage. No one, not even John the Baptiser’s closest followers, would have thought of John in terms of the Greek Logos.
‘Which lights every man coming into the world.’ Whether ‘coming into the world’ is to be attached to ‘every man’ as signifying ‘lightens every man that comes into the world’, thus applying it literally to ‘every man’, or whether it should be attached to ‘the true light’ as signifying ‘the true light — that was coming into the world’ is open to question. But both essential ideas are true, for He was certainly coming into the world, and He was equally certainly coming as a light to every man who was coming into the world. But the latter is more probably the essential meaning as normal Greek usage suggests. The Light had lightened all men at creation by making man a spiritual being, and was now coming into the world as the One Who lightens every man from a spiritual perspective. The offer was universal. Though not all would receive the light, it would shine on them, and by their response to it the truth about them would be revealed (Joh 3:19-21). Compare how Jesus is elsewhere constantly described as the One Who was ‘coming into the world’ (Joh 6:14; Joh 9:39; Joh 11:27; Joh 16:28).
On the other hand we could see it as meaning that the Word was a universal light shining on every man, pleading for response, and yet soon fading as far as they were concerned as men closed their minds and hearts to Him. This thought is amplified by Paul in Rom 1:19-20. To those whose hearts are open to the light, Nature itself will reveal the truth about God’s eternal power and Godhead.
Isaiah describes the Coming Servant of the Lord as being ‘a light to the Gentiles’ (Isa 42:6; Isa 49:6), words which are cited in Luk 2:32 of Jesus, and this ties in with the idea of Him ‘lighting every man who comes into the world’ rather than just the Jews. This may well indicate that Isaiah’s prophetic ideas are foremost in his thoughts.
That this light refers to Jesus is immediately made clear (Joh 1:10-11; Joh 1:14) and also comes out later in the chapter where John the Baptiser bears his testimony to Jesus (Joh 1:29-34). It is testimony to how faithful the Gospel writer is to his sources that he does not try to put terms like ‘the Word’ or even ‘the light’ on the lips of John the Baptiser. But the reader is left in no doubt that Jesus is the One to Whom ‘the Word’ and ‘the light’ refer. (It is even more significant in that the Qumranists spoke of ‘the sons of light’ and the ‘spirit of lights’, so that John must have been aware of such terminology, and could well have used it, but of course their light was the light of the Torah as illuminated by the ‘good spirit’ and by ‘the Teacher of Righteousness’).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 1:8 . is emphatic , and is therefore placed in the front: he was not the Light, but he was to bear witness of the Light; and hence, in the second clause, emphatically takes the lead. The object of making this antithesis prominent is not controversy, nor has it the slightest reference to the disciples of John (see the Introduction), but to point out [80] the true position of the Baptist in face of the historical fact, that when he first appeared, men took him for the Messiah Himself (comp. Joh 1:20 ; Luk 3:15 ), so that his witnessshall appear in its proper historical aspect. Comp. Cyril.
, . . .] From what precedes, we must understand before ; a rapid hastening away to the main thought (comp. Joh 9:3 , Joh 13:18 , Joh 15:25 ; 1Jn 2:19 ; Fritzsche, ad Matt . 840 f.; Winer, p. 297 [E. T. p. 398]); not imperative (De Wette), nor dependent upon (Lcke, Lange, Godet): not the latter, because , (instead of ), even if it were linguistically possible, is here untenable on account of the emphasis placed upon the ; while to take in the sense of aderat , as again understood before (Godet), would be more forced and arbitrary than to supply from Joh 1:7 .
[80] Not: to bring more fully to light the greatness of Christ, through the subordination to Him of the greatest men and prophets, as Hengstenb. asserts. In this case John ought to have been described according to his own greatness and rank, and not simply as in ver. 6.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
Ver. 8. He was not that light ] As some sinisterly conceited, which therefore occasioned that most necessary digression, Joh 1:6-10 , and drew afterwards, from the Baptist himself, that most vehement profession, Joh 1:20 ; “He confessed and denied not, but confessed,” &c. He knew well the danger of detracting in the least degree from God’s glory. To look upon it only, and lust after it, is to commit spiritual fornication with it in our hearts; for it is God’s beloved spouse, and he being jealous, cannot bear a co-rival. Look upon it therefore but with a single eye, Mat 6:22 , and in all addresses to God, give the honour to him; take humility to thyself, as Austin well adviseth, a Let that be thy motto that was his, Propter te, Domine, propter re. Study God’s ends, and we may have anything of him, as Moses, Exo 32:30-35 .
a Illi da claritatem, tibi humilitatem. Aug. ad Bonifac., Eph 205.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
8. ] John was himself (ch. Joh 5:35 ), see note on Mat 5:14 , but not .
On , see reff.: it belongs to , not to above. And thus there is no ellipsis of ‘ came ’ or ‘was sent:’ John simply was , in order to &c.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 1:8 . , the thought of the previous verse is here put in a negative form for the sake of emphasis; and with the same object is made prominent that it may contrast with the . He (or, that man) was not the light, but he appeared that he might bear witness regarding the light. Why say this of John? Was there any danger that he should be mistaken for the light? Some did think he was the Christ. See Joh 1:19-20 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
John
THE WORD IN ETERNITY, IN THE WORLD, AND IN THE FLESH
THE LIGHT AND THE LAMPS
Joh 1:8
My two texts both refer to John the Baptist. One of them is the Evangelist’s account of him, the other is our Lord’s eulogium upon him. The latter of my texts, as the Revised Version shows, would be more properly rendered, ‘He was a lamp’ rather than ‘He was a light,’ and the contrast between the two words, the ‘light’ and ‘the lamps,’ is my theme. I gather all that I would desire to say into three points: ‘that Light’ and its witnesses; the underived Light and the kindled lamps; the undying Light and the lamps that go out.
I. First of all, then, the contrast suggested to us is between ‘that Light’ and its witnesses.
Next, he turns to the highest honour and the most imperative duty laid, not only upon mighty men and officials, but upon all on whose happy eyeballs this Light has shone, and into whose darkened hearts the joy and peace and purity of it have flowed, and he says, ‘He was sent’-and they are sent-’to bear witness of that Light.’ It is the noblest function that a man can discharge. It is a function that is discharged by the very existence through the ages of a community which, generation after generation, subsists, and generation after generation manifests in varying degrees of brightness, and with various modifications of tint, the same light. There is the family character in all true Christians, with whatever diversities of idiosyncrasies, and national life or ecclesiastical distinctions. Whether it be Francis of Assisi or John Wesley, whether it be Thomas a Kempis or George Fox, the light is one that shines through these many-coloured panes of glass, and the living Church is the witness of a living Lord, not only before it, and behind it, and above it, but living in it. They are ‘light’ because they are irradiated by Him. They are ‘light’ because they are ‘in the Lord.’ But not only by the fact of the existence of such a community is the witness-bearing effected, but it comes as a personal obligation, with immense weight of pressure and immense possibilities of joy in the discharge of it, to every Christian man and woman.
What, then, is the witness that we all are bound to bear, and shall bear if we are true to our obligations and to our Lord? Mainly, dear brethren, the witness of experience. That a Christian man shall be able to stand up and say, ‘I know this because I live it, and I testify to Jesus Christ because I for myself have found Him to be the life of my life, the Light of all my seeing, the joy of my heart, my home, and my anchorage’-that is the witness that is impregnable. And there is no better sign of the trend of Christian thought to-day than the fact that the testimony of experience is more and more coming to be recognised by thoughtful men and writers as being the sovereign attestation of the reality of the Light. ‘I see’; that is the proof that light has touched my eyeballs. And when a man can contrast, as some of us can, our present vision with our erstwhile darkness, then the evidence, like that of the sturdy blind man in the Gospels, who had nothing to say in reply to the subtleties and Rabbinical traps and puzzles but only ‘I was blind; now I see’-his experience is likely to have the effect that it had in another miracle of healing: ‘Beholding the man which was healed standing amongst them, they could say nothing against it.’ I should think they could not.
But there is one thing that will always characterise the true witnesses to that Light, and that is self-suppression. Remember the beautiful, immovable humility of the Baptist about whom these texts were spoken: ‘What sayest thou of thyself?’ ‘I am a Voice,’ that is all. ‘Art thou that Prophet?’ ‘No!’ ‘Art thou the Christ?’ ‘No! I am nothing but a Voice.’ And remember how, when John’s disciples tried to light the infernal fires of jealousy in his quiet heart by saying, ‘He whom thou didst baptise, and to whom thou didst give witness’-He whom thou didst start on His career-’is baptising,’ poaching upon thy preserves, ‘and all men come unto Him,’ the only answer that he gave was, ‘The friend of the Bridegroom’-who stands by in a quiet, dark corner-’rejoices greatly because of the Bridegroom’s voice.’ Keep yourself out of sight, Christian teachers and preachers; put Christ in the front, and hide behind Him.
II. Now let me ask you to look at the other contrast that is suggested by our other text. The underived light and the kindled lamps.
I need not say more than a word with regard to the former member of that contrast suggested here. That unlit Light derives its brilliancy, according to the Scriptural teaching, from nothing but its divine union with the Father. So that long before there were eyes to see, there was the eradiation and outshining of the Father’s glory. I do not enter into these depths, but this I would say, that what is called the ‘originality’ of Jesus is only explained when we reverently see in that unique life the shining through a pure humanity, as through a sheet of alabaster, of that underived, divine Light. Jesus is an insoluble problem to men who will not see in Him the Eternal Light which ‘in the beginning was with God.’ You find in Him no trace of gradual acquisition of knowledge, or of arguing or feeling His way to His beliefs. You find in Him no trace of consciousness of a great horizon of darkness encompassing the region where He sees light. You find in Him no trace of a recognition of other sources from which He has drawn any portion of His light. You find in Him the distinct declaration that His relation to truth is not the relation of men who learn, and grow, and acquire, and know in part; for, says He, ‘I am the Truth.’ He stands apart from us all, and above us all, in that He owes His radiance to none, and can dispense it to every man. The question which the puzzled Jews asked about Him, ‘How knoweth this Man letters, having never learned?’ may be widened out to all the characteristics of His human life. To me the only answer is: ‘Thou art the King of glory, O Christ! Thou art the Everlasting Son of the Father.’
Dependent on Him are the little lights which He has lit, and in the midst of which He walks. Union with Jesus Christ-’that Light’-is the condition of all human light. That is true over all regions, as I believe. ‘The inspiration of the Almighty giveth understanding.’ The candle of the Lord shines in every man, and ‘that true Light lighteth every man that cometh into the world.’ Thinker, student, scientist, poet, author, practical man-all of them are lit from the uncreated Source, and all of them, if they understand their own nature, would say, ‘In Thy light do we see Light.’
But especially is this great thought true and exemplified within the limits of the Christian life. For the Christian to be touched with Christ’s Promethean finger is to flame into light. And the condition of continuing to shine is to continue the contact which first illuminated. A break in the contact, of a finger’s breadth, is as effectual as one of a mile. Let Christian men and women, if they would shine, remember, ‘Ye are light in the Lord’; and if we stray, and get without the circle of the Light, we pass into darkness, and ourselves cease to shine.
Brethren, it is threadbare truth, that the condition of Christian vitality and radiance is close and unbroken contact with Jesus Christ, the Source of all light. Threadbare; but if we lived as if we believed it, the Church would be revolutionised and the world illuminated; and many a smoking wick would flash up into a blazing torch. Let Christian people remember that the words of my text define no special privilege or duty of any official or man of special endowments, but that to all of us has been said, ‘Ye are My witnesses,’ and to all of us is offered the possibility of being ‘burning and shining lights’ if we keep ourselves close to that Light.
III. Lastly, the second of my texts suggests-the contrast between the Undying Light and the lamps that go out.
I am not going to enter upon that question; I only ask you to think of the contrast between His position, in this generation, to communities and individuals, and the position of all other great names which lie in the past. Why, it does not take more than a lifetime such as mine, for instance, to remember how the great lights that shone seventy years ago in English thinking and in English literature, have for the most part gone out, and what we young men thought to be bright particular stars, this new generation pooh-poohs as mere exhalations from the marsh or twinkling and uncertain tapers, and you will find their books in the twopenny-box at the bookseller’s door. A cynical diplomatist, in one of our modern dramas, sums it up, after seeing the death of a revolutionary, ‘I have known eight leaders of revolts.’ And some of us could say, ‘We have known about as many guides of men who have been forgotten and passed away.’ ‘His Name shall endure for ever. His name shall continue as long as the sun, and men shall be blessed in Him; all generations shall call Him blessed.’ Even Shelley had the prophecy forced from him-
‘The moon of Mahomet
Arose and it shall set,
While blazoned as on heaven’s eternal noon,
The Cross leads generations on.’
So, brethren, when lamps are quenched, let us look to the Light. When our own lives are darkened because our household light is taken from its candlestick, let us lift up our hearts and hopes to Him that abideth for ever. Do not let us fall into the folly, and commit the sin, of putting our heart’s affections, our spirit’s trust, upon any that can pass and that must change. We need a Person whom we can clasp, and who never will glide from our hold. We need a Light uncreated, self-fed, eternal. ‘Whilst ye have the Light, believe in the Light, that ye may be the children of light.’
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
he = That one. Compare Joh 2:21.
that Light = the Light. Compare Joh 9:5; Joh 12:35.
was sent. Supply “came” from Joh 1:7.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
8.] John was himself (ch. Joh 5:35), see note on Mat 5:14, but not .
On , see reff.: it belongs to , not to above. And thus there is no ellipsis of came or was sent: John simply was, in order to &c.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 1:8. , That One) Some had suspected, that John was the Light: , that One points out a more remote object.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 1:8
Joh 1:8
He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light.-John came to testify that others might believe in Jesus. [The apostle states that John was not the light probably in opposition to an idea of some that John himself was the Messiah. The clause is an emphatic reassertion of the statement of verse 7.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
that light: Joh 1:20, Joh 3:28, Act 19:4
Reciprocal: 2Sa 21:17 – quench Psa 36:9 – in thy Isa 43:10 – my witnesses Mal 4:2 – the Sun Joh 1:4 – the life Joh 1:15 – bare Joh 5:35 – was
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
8
He was not that light. John was always attentive to keep the people informed about his relation to Christ in his work, and did not want them to confuse the one with the other. (See verses 15, 20, 27.)
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 1:8. He was not the Light, but he was that he might bear witness concerning the Light. The thought of the greatness of the witness borne by John underlies the words of this verse. Great as the Baptist was, he was not the Light. What he was is not expressed, but only the purpose which he was to fulfil (comp. Joh 1:23). It is very possible that the words may have had a special application to the opinions which (as we learn from Act 18:25; Act 19:3) existed at Ephesus with regard to the mission of John.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
[See also the “General Considerations on the Prologue” in the comments of Joh 1:18.]
Ver. 8. He was not the light; but [he came] to bear witness to the light.
The emphasis is not, as Meyerand Weiss think, on the verbal idea, was, but on the subject He, in contrast with the other personage (Joh 1:9). Hence the choice of the pronoun , which has always with John a strongly emphatic and even oftentimes exclusive sense. It is in vain, as it seems to me, that Weiss denies this special use of the pronoun in our Gospel. In a multitude of cases, this commentator is obliged to have recourse to veritable feats of skill in order to maintain that this pronoun always designates a subject or an object which is more remote, in opposition to one that is nearer; comp. e.g., Joh 1:40;Joh 5:39; Joh 7:45, and many other passages which we shall notice, and where the sense which is claimed by Weiss is not applicable. The , in order that, depends, according to Meyer and Weiss, on an (came) understood, or it is even, according to Luthardt, independent of any verb, as often in John (Joh 9:3; Joh 13:18; Joh 15:25). But this independence can never be other than apparent; a purpose must always depend on some action. And it is unnatural to go very far in search of the verb , came, while the verb , was, can easily take the sense of was there (aderat) and serve as a point of support for the in order that; comp. Joh 7:39, where Weiss himself renders by aderat.
It appears to me scarcely admissible that by this remark John desires simply to set forth the absolute superiority of Jesus to John the Baptist, (Meyer, Hengstenberg); or that, as Weiss thinks, we have here again a point merely describing the experience of the author himself as an old disciple of the forerunner. The negative form is too emphatic to be explained thus, and the analogous passages Joh 1:20; Joh 3:25 ff., compared with Act 13:25, and with the remarkable fact related in Act 19:3-4, lead us rather to suppose a polemic design in opposition to persons who attributed to the forerunner the dignity of Messiah (comp. Introd. pp. 213, 214).
The testimony of John should have opened the door of faith to all, and rendered unbelief impossible. And yet the impossibility is realized, and even under the most monstrous form. This is what is developed in Joh 1:9-11.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
1:8 He was not {o} that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light.
(o) That light which we spoke of, that is, Christ, who alone can enlighten our darkness.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Perhaps the writer stressed the fact that John the Baptist was not the Light because some people continued to follow John as his disciples long after he died (cf. Joh 4:1; Mar 6:29; Luk 5:33; Act 18:25; Act 19:1-7).
"A Mandaean sect still continues south of Baghdad which, though hostile to Christianity, claims an ancestral link to the Baptist." [Note: Blum, p. 272.]
Mandaism was a non-Christian type of Gnosticism. [Note: See Morris, p. 57; Beasley-Murray, pp. lvii-lviii.]
John the Baptist’s function was clearly to testify that Jesus was the Light. He was not that Light himself.
The reason the writer referred to John the Baptist in his prologue seems obvious. As the Word came to bring light to humanity, so God sent John the Baptist to illuminate the identity of the Light to people.