Merry Christmas!

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος ("literally, word-for-word": "And G[g]od was the word"; what you read: "And the Word was God")

Today, we celebrate the birth of our lord and savor. We do not celebrate merely a human savior (though he was and is 100% human), but a divine one. John's prologue is arguably the strongest and clearest pericope that identifies Jesus as divine.

The above Greek is typically translated, "And the Word was God." However, there are some, particularly Jehovah's witnesses, that translate this, "And the Word was a god." In this translation, "god" is not a proper name or even a characteristic/quality, but instead it is used similarly to how angels are called "gods" in the Old Testament (Ps. 82:2); there, they are not considered divine, but they are called "gods" in the sense that they are some sort of esteemed authority figures. In fact, Jehovah's witnesses argue that Jesus is an angel. 

One of the reasons for this sort of translation (other than some predispositions) is the lack of the article before θεὸς (God). Since in Greek there is only a definite article (the), often in Greek, Greek grammar signifies an indefinite article ("a") by withholding the article. However, this is not a rule; it depends on the context of each particular verse. For example, it is also common for names in Greek to be without the Greek article[1], yet one does not translate this with an "a" (e.g. "A Christian; A Jesus; A Paul." It is also common for names to have an article, but this does not mean that we should add "the" in the translation (e.g. "the Paul").[2] And another reason the article is often withheld, especially in predicate nominative constructions, is for "emphasizing the quality of the substantive" (e.g. 1 Jn. 4:8: "God is love").[3]

Thus, in this instance, θεὸς is a proper name, since "God" is a name in Scripture. Jesus was with God and is God. These two propositions differentiate the Father from the Son, yet they combine to tell us that Jesus is a person of the godhead.

Some may argue that the Greek word for God can be used to refer to "a god." So if it is argued that this is not a name here, what else can be said to be sure our theology is not based on a lie of a translation. Daniel Wallace offers some insight here. saying, "In brief, its [θεὸς] emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: 'What God was, the Word was' is how one translation brings out this force." [4] In other words, in a predicate nominative construction, which this is, when the predicate noun (as opposed to the substantive noun) comes first in word order, the construction is emphasizing the predicate noun; and in Greek grammar, this emphasis is done in these constructions to stress the "quality" or "essence" of the substantive noun. Thus, if the first option is wrong, we can at least say that this verse is saying that Jesus, the Word, is divine and was with the Father, God.

So, whatever position you take, remember that Jesus is divine, but he became a human for our salvation. Glory be to God and merry Christmas. Amen.

_________________________________________________________________________________

[1] William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 334.

[2] Ibid., 37.

[3] Ibid., 335.

[4]Daniel B. Wallace, "Exegetical Insight," Basic of Biblical Greek Grammar, 3rd ed., William D. Mounce (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 27.

Thoughts on Verbal Aspect

-->

Campbell, Constantine R. Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek.Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008.

I originally thought when I started this blog that I would have time to write thoughtful essays and reviews, but I no longer think that that is the case. Instead, when I review a book, I'm going to make bullet points like this and point out anything I found interesting or important. I read this book a while ago, but I read it again somewhat recently. I want to point out why it's important. English readers need to understand Greek a little more if we are to make solid theological and biblical conclusions. 

·      This book is important because it clarifies why Greek verbs behave the way that they do. Scholars have traditionally maintained that Greek verbs encode aspect and temporal reference, but as Campbell points out, some verbs that supposedly encode a certain temporal reference, say past temporal reference, behave in ways outside the supposed encoded temporal reference. For example, aorist tense verbs sometimes are future and present in temporal reference, even though they supposedly encode past temporal reference. So, instead of Greek verbs encoding aspect and time, they encode aspect and spatial value, he argues; after all, even we often refer to time with the imagery of distance (e.g. the past is far away). The possible spatial values are remoteness (far away, distant) and proximity (close, nearby). This holds true for all the verb tenses besides the future. He points out that every future communicates future temporal reference; there are no exceptions. This is because the future tense verb was developed later in Greek history as time became more important.

·      When we open up our English Bibles, most of you probably think that biblical Greek verbs behave in similar or even identical ways that English verbs behave; this is normal and expected. After all, when we read our Bibles, we see temporal reference everywhere. However, if this is not the case, then English readers to be aware that their translations might not be 100% correct, or at least they need to be aware that there is a possibility that English translations might not have it right, and we should therefore not base our theology off of how an English verb behaves. Study the commentaries and interact with their conversations overs aspect.

·      It is also an important book because it helps to clarify common pastor mistakes. Many pastors have said in the past that aorist communicate once-and-for-all actions (13). However, if we understand perfective aspect properly, we realize that perfective aspect does not necessarily communicate this. This sort of action, called punctilliar, is a result of the perfective aspect working in tandem with surrounding verb’s context. Campbell’s clarification of aspect helps remove this sort of confusion.

·      So, this book explains the exceptions to the rules so that these exceptions are no longer exceptions. Instead, they are expected results that occur when the aspect and spatial value act with the verb’s lexeme (the particular verb) and context within the verse. For example, Matthew 3:17 reads, “And behold, a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’” The verb of being (“I am well please”) is actually an aorist verb; scholars have maintained that aorists encode past temporal reference, but nonetheless, many of those same people argue that this aorist has present temporal reference. If spatial value is encoded in Greek verbs, this can explain this exception (which then is no longer an exception). Aoristd have perfective aspect and the spatial value of remoteness. God, thus, from the perspective of seeing his whole life—birth to death—in sight, which can only be viewed/seen, metaphorically speaking, from a distance, God says that he is happy with his whole life lived. If past temporal reference were maintained, then it would sound as though God was pleased, but maybe not anymore, at least this possibility is available based on the grammar, and it is hard to explain this exception other than to say that the context overrides the encoded temporal reference. But is time really encoded if it can be overridden?

·      It is especially an important book because of its discussion of perfect and pluperfect verbs. Traditionally, scholars have maintained that perfects encode the aspect of stativity and past temporal reference with continuing significance in the present. However, he argues that perfects and pluperfects encode imperfective aspect, with the perfect also encoding heightened proximity and the pluperfect encoding heightened remoteness. “Heightened” differentiates these from the present and imperfect tense-verbs that they parallel. They parallel them in that they are used in similar situations in which the presents and imperfects are used. Also, Campbell points out that stativity is not an aspect at all in any language; it is universally regarded as an aktionsart (“type of action” in German), and perfects in the New Testament simply do not always convey past actions with continuing significance and actions that are stative. However, imperfective aspect is well-suited for stative contexts.

·      This is a good example of the significance of this book for the perfect tense: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith” (2 Tim. 4:7). This verse uses perfect-tense verbs; interpreters have traditionally interpreted perfect-tense verbs with “have/had,” (15) and as already noted, scholars have argued that perfects convey past temporal reference, but the actions have continuing significance in the present. If this is the case, then this verse as quoted above is correct. Paul is about to die, and he has finished his mission. He feels as though his past actions and faith have been enough; he no longer has to do anything more to get to heaven. However, if perfects convey imperfective aspect and heightened proximity, then it is better translated as, “I am fighting the good fight, I am finishing the race, and I am keeping the faith.” This changes the verse a little. Instead of Paul seeing that his mission is already accomplished, he sees it as always continuing. The mission is never over; we cannot just say we are done and accomplished because of past actions and faith; even to the point of death, we must continue to fight and keep the faith. Our faith counts for all of life; there is not room to hang on to past laurels. We must remain faithful, even to death. Now this sounds like the Paul that we meet in his letters, and it sounds and looks like the Jesus that never saw his mission accomplished until he breathed his last.

·      He also talks about the how aspect and spatial distance work with the subjunctive, imperative, and participle moods. He notes that only aspect, not spatial distance, is encoded in these moods. This makes sense, as traditionally scholars have argued that these moods only encode aspect and not temporal reference. The aspect's interaction with the surrounding context and the temporal reference of the main verb of any given clause usually determines the temporal reference in these moods.

1 John 1:5 (Part 6, Final post)

Well, it's been a while since the last time I have posted any blog posts. Life sort of got in the way. I originally started a series on the biblical phrase "God is light." I was going to carefully edit and craft each post, but, well, since it's been so long since my last post on the subject, I'm just going to post the rest of my essay at once, and I'm not going to carefully edit anything. So, excuse any poor grammar, typos, spelling mistakes, etc. Also, I did not footnote here, but did try to use sloppy parenthetical citations. But I just want to get this out there somewhere. So, enjoy the post below (for the 0 people that will likely read any or all of this (: )

PART 6: 1 JOHN 1:5: “GOD IS LIGHT”:


John and 1 John and the Old Testament on Light:

After this whirlwind journey through the various meaning of the term “light” in the Old Testament, it is now finally time to analyze John’s usage of the term, in light of the Old Testament background. The first step to complete this analysis, as this discussion will bear out, is to explain how John describes salvation.

Eternal life in John and 1 John:

Eternal life is just one way the New Testament, and especially John, describes salvation. John 3:16, one of the most quoted verses in all of Scripture, says this quite explicitly. It says that Jesus was sent into and died for the world to give all those that believe in him “eternal life” so that they would not die. Jesus clarifies this statement by saying that God did not want to condemn the world but save the world by sending Jesus. Salvation, then, is eternal life, and condemnation is death.
Jesus is also called “eternal life.” 1 John 1:1b-2 reads, “(Concerning the word of life—and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and announce to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us).” In the context of this verse, John is talking about Jesus as “the eternal life” that “we have seen.” John and the others in the “we” touched, looked at, and heard this “eternal life.” If John was referring to eternal life given to man, then he could not have touched and looked at it. Jesus is “the eternal life.” John is probably saying the same thing he says in John 1:5: for Jesus to be the eternal life means that Jesus is the source of all eternal life (see the below discussion for more). This name for Jesus comes right after John calls Jesus the “word of life,” which means the word that provides life

John 1:4: “In him [the Word] was life, and the life was the light of mankind.”

Jewish writings that existed around the time of Jesus, following the Old Testament idea that obedience to God’s word led to long life in the land of Israel, said that God’s word was a guide that led to the reward of eternal life [Keener, The IVP Bible Backfround Commentary: New Testament, Note on Jn. 1:4]. The roots of this idea can be seen in Deuteronomy 5:16 and Exodus 20:12, for example; obedience to God’s word leads to a long life in the land God was going to give Israel. Psalm 119:105 and Proverbs 6:23 further develop this concept—following God’s word leads to life (see above). John connects the word with the person of the Word; he is the same word of the Old Testament that leads one to life [Keener, Background commentary, Jn. 1:4]. Therefore, the Word can be called “the life” or “life” because following the Word leads to life. In other words, he is the source of life. This fits what the discussion mentioned above: the light as the word of God is that which guides one to life, so it can be called a source of life. It fits into categories six and seven above (light as guide and life).
Now, salvation in John is equivalent to eternal life (as shown above), but at this point in John, John has not introduced this concept. However, he is subtly doing so in this verse by stating that “the life was the light of mankind” (1:4). As this discussion just demonstrated, to call the Word “life” (or “the life”) is to call the Word the source of eternal life (a guide that leads to eternal life), as the New Testament background of this expression shows. But at this point, this does not mean explicitly that salvation for John is equivalent to eternal life, but calling the life “the light of mankind” accomplishes this task. As the discussion shows above, in the Old Testament, light often signifies salvation or that which provides salvation, a savior. Isaiah 42:6 and 49:6 in particular both involve the imagery of one being a “light to the nations,” and in both cases, being a “light to the nations” signifies bringing salvation to the nations, which would consist of all of humankind. It seems John is familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures, as he seems to use Genesis language in the prologue, so it makes sense that he borrowed language from Isaiah to make some theological points—Jesus is the light that Isaiah prophesied about. Therefore, since the one who provides eternal life (being the Word) is also the one who also brings salvation to humankind, John is saying that salvation consists of receiving eternal life. In other word, John is saying, “That which you believe gives eternal life, God’s word, is also that which will bring salvation to the world.” And since the function of God’s word is to bring eternal life, for it to be called the savior of the world is to call the function of God’s word the salvation of humanity. After all, 1:4 reads, “ . . . and the life was the light of mankind . . . [my emphasis].” Meaning, the function of the word, which provides eternal life, is the savior (salvation) of the world.

John 1:5: “And the light shines on in the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it.”

Now, many interpreters see darkness here as signifying generic evil, and as the Old Testament discussion above demonstrated, that is indeed a possible meaning [Borchert, Gerald L. John 1–11. Vol. 25A. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996]. However, a better meaning of darkness here is exile, specifically spiritual exile, which is spiritual death. As the discussion above showed, in the context of salvation and deliverance, light often signifies salvation and darkness signifies exile (or judgment/condemnation). And if it is correct that John is using “light” in the sense of salvation by eternal life, as demonstrated above, then the darkness, the opposite of light, signifies exile, or specifically in contrast to eternal life, spiritual death.
A few examples to prove this point in the Old Testament: whenever light signifies salvation in the Old Testament (especially Isaiah), the image of darkness seems to follow. For example, coming right after Isaiah 49:6 (“light to the nations”), 49:9 reads, “‘You [the servant of God, the “light to the nations”] will say to the prisoners, ‘Come out,’ and to those who are in dark dungeons, ‘Emerge.’ They will graze beside the roads; on all the slopes they will find pasture’” [my emphasis]. Isaiah 42:7 is similar. The “light to the nations” to tasked “to open blind eyes, to release prisoners from dungeons, those who live in darkness from prisons” [my emphasis]. The point is clear: darkness signifies the opposite of deliverance, exile, and the light saves those in exile. Jeremiah 13:6 is especially clear on this point. Here, he warns Israel to turn from sin before “he turns the light of deliverance you hope for into the darkness and gloom of exile” [my emphasis]. This particular contrast of light and darkness is in other OT texts as well (Isa. 9:2; 42:16; Amos 5:18; Lam. 3:2). Whether Isaiah and Jeremiah meant a more physical, literal deliverance from a physical, literal exile is not the point. What is the point is that John seems to use similar language to talk about salvation and exile.
There is one more OT verse that is pertinent and significant to this discussion: Isaiah 60:1. A more thorough analysis can be found above in 9b. It reads: “Arise! Shine! For your light arrives! For, look, darkness covers the earth . . . but the Lord shines on you; his splendor appears over you.” Again, as the above discussion shows, “light” here signifies salvation/deliverance and darkness most likely signifies exile/judgment/condemnation. What is important here, however, is the similar language Isaiah and John use. In both instances, the “light” “shines” in a place of darkness. In Isaiah 60:1, the “light” shines in the world that is covered in a “deep darkness.” In John 1:5, the “light” also “shines” into “the darkness.” This discussion already illustrated the parallels between Isaiah’s usage of “light to the nations” and John’s usage of “light of humankind” and the meaning that each signify, so it makes sense that John is paralleling Isaiah yet again. Jesus is the awaited light of salvation that shines into the darkness of judgment/exile/condemnation in the world. Granted, Isaiah does not use the language the darkness failing to master the light, but the parallels do not have to be exact. John is alluding to the text, not quoting it word for word. So, to put into non-metaphorical language, John is saying, “The source of your eternal life, which is your salvation, has arrived to save the world from spiritual death, and spiritual death that we all suffer from is not able to overcome the eternal life that Jesus gives us.”
The Gospel of John makes this same connection explicit. The eternal life that the Word gives to man is salvation from spiritual death. John 5:21 reads, “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes.” And again in 5:25, “I tell you the solemn truth, a time is coming—and is now here—when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live” As this discussion showed above, eternal life is equivalent to salvation. In these two verses, one can see that people are in a state of spiritual death, and eternal life saves them from that. Thus, darkness is spiritual deadness. It is the exile that eternal life saves them from.
Therefore, this discussion has shown that Akin is basically correct in his assessment of light and darkness thus far; they signify the source of eternal life and spiritual death, respectively. One caveat, though, is that it seems “light” in 1:4 signifies salvation (or savior, pick one) directly and “source of eternal” life more indirectly, but Akin’s point remains true. Since salvation is eternal life, to say that Jesus is the savior of the world (which light signifies) is to say that he is the source of said eternal life.

John 1:9: “The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.”

Again, John refers to Jesus as the “light,” but he does refer to him as the “true light.” Does this make a difference? Well, according to New Testament scholar Gerald Borchert, it does: “The Greek meaning emphasizes completeness and authenticity, but the Hebrew ʾĕmet, which stands behind the LXX and New Testament concept of truth, primarily stresses steadfastness or faithfulness and dependability in addition to a contrast with that which is false” [Borchert, John, 112] So, Jesus is the real, faithful, and dependable the source of eternal life. More could be said (maybe a future blog post), but the point of this verse remains the same. Jesus Christ is the source of eternal life (light) that gives “light” to everyone. It is doubtful John switched out the signification of “light” here, as this verse is part of his prologue, which contains 1:4.
As for the second part of the verse, to give “light” to someone is to give salvation, which is equivalent to eternal life, to that person. Not only, as already discussed, does “light” signify salvation (or savior/one that provides salvation), but it also signifies life in the Old Testament (category 7), which is probably why John used the term light in regards to salvation and eternal life. John connected the two most common significations of light in the Old Testament, life and salvation, because for John, life (eternal life) is salvation.
It could be argued that this is all wrong, that “light” signifies guidance/a guide or righteousness. Maybe he is the guiding light for the world that provides guidance for everyone. It could also be argued that “light” signifies righteousness/goodness and darkness is unrighteousness/evil. Maybe Jesus is the righteous one and brings righteousness into the world and fights against evil (darkness). But there are good reasons to disagree with this. First, as the argument above showed, John uses some verbiage that parallels Isaiah’s usage of light, and that usage signifies deliverance/salvation/savior. Second, even if John usage of “light” signifies guidance, that signification is not too far off from salvation, as the Jewish world understood God’s word as a guide (“light”) to eternal life. Meaning, the guide guided them to the destination of eternal life. Third, even if “light” signifies righteousness, this is also closely related to salvation, as those that have eternal life practice righteousness, which is obedience to God, and those that do not have eternal life, those in the dark, practice evil. This aspect will be further explored in the next verse. And fourth, John makes this connection of light and life/salvation explicit in another verse that this discussion explores—John 8:12.

John 3:19: “Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil.”

That light signifies deliverance/salvation/savior is clear, but as mentioned above, John seemed aware of the connection of light with salvation, life, and righteousness. The “light” of the world provides salvation (is the savior), and salvation is equivalent to possessing eternal life. Furthermore, this light shows that light is connected with righteousness as well. Jesus says, “ . . . people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil.” To put it in different words: “People loved being in a state of spiritual death more so than they loved the one person that could provide them life. How do I know? I know because the people loved doing evil rather than good.” So, while “light” and “darkness” do not signify righteousness/goodness and unrighteousness/evil directly, there is a close association. Those that receive the source of life act in obedience to God’s word. It seems John was aware of the flexibility of the term “light” when he wrote his Gospel. In the Old Testament, light signifies life/existence, righteousness/goodness, and deliverance/salvation/savior more often than any other signification. While John is using it primarily in the sense of salvation, John is nonetheless tying all of those three significations together. Those that are saved, and that salvation consists of receiving eternal life, show their salvation by living a life of obedience, but those that are in a state of spiritual death show their deadness and love for their deadness by living a life of unrighteousness and evil.

John 8:12: “Then Jesus spoke out again, ‘I am the light of the world. The one who follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.’”

Again, John uses the same phrase to explain who Jesus is: he is the “light of the world.” See the above discussion to get an idea of what this means. Next, Jesus says that his followers “will never walk in darkness.” Again, the connection of salvation and righteousness is found in this verse as well. Granted, Jesus is talking about darkness instead of light, but the connection remains. To “walk in darkness” is to be live in the state spiritual death. There a few verses discussed above that make this connection clear. Again, John seems to use verbiage from the Old Testament. In Lamentations 3:2, the author laments his exile with the rest of Israel by stating, “ He drove me into captivity and made me walk in darkness and not light.” For the author, to “walk in darkness” is to live in a state of exile. Isaiah 59:9 is similar. Speaking on behalf of Israel, he laments that Israel’s salvation (“light”) is far away. Instead, they live in exile (“darkness”). The prophets says, “We wait for light, but see only darkness; we wait for a bright light, but live in deep darkness. Again, the verbiage is too similar to be a coincidence. To “live in deep darkness” is to reside in a state of exile. The same again occurs in Isaiah 9:2, which reads, “The people walking in darkness see a bright light; light shines on those who live in a land of deep darkness.” Again, as the discussion showed above, light signifies salvation and darkness exile. So, “live” or to “walk in darkness” is to reside in a state of exile.
However, this same verbiage is also used in the context of light signifying a guide or wisdom (Ecc. 2:13-14; Job 29:3). To “walk in darkness” is to live a life without the guidance of the law or a life without wisdom. Again, as the discussion showed above, it seems “light” signifies salvation and life in the Old Testament more than any other concept. Second, it seems John is aware of this and is using the terminology in regards to salvation as eternal life because of the flexibility of “light” as a metaphor. Furthermore, even if the terminology of “walking in darkness (contrary to “walking in light”) signifies living without a guide/guidance (category 7), this is closely associated with “light” as salvation and life that it does not matter. After all, the “light” guides one to eternal life. Furthermore, to live a life in a state of spiritual death is to live a life without God’s Word, Jesus, as guide, as the unrighteous do trust and believe in Jesus. So, there is a close connection between “light” as a guide and “light” as salvation/a savior. Thus, it seems John is once again aware of the possible significations of this term and is taking advantage of it. So, while walking “in darkness” does not mean directly signify that one is living without the Word as a guide, it does, nonetheless, indirectly mean that one is not living with belief in the Word. There is close association.
The connection of life (or eternal life) as a meaning for “light” and salvation as a meaning for “light” is even more explicit in the final part of this verse. Jesus says that those that follow him will have “the light of life.” This part of the verse sounds similar to Job 33:30, which reads, “[God does these things to a person] to turn back his life from the place of corruption, that he may be enlightened with the light of life.” As discussed above, it seems the “light of life” in 33:30 signifies a source of life. At the very least, the phrase signifies life in some sense, in contrast to death (being in the “place of corruption”). And this phrase does signify “light” as a source of life, as it seems it does, then this is additional support that in John 1:4 “light” signifies something as a source of salvation, or that provides salvation, with salvation being equivalent to eternal life.
And as already discussed, salvation in John is receiving eternal life, and Jesus is the source of that eternal life. Thus, it seems John is explicitly making the connection between life and salvation. Those that follow Jesus will receive life, which is salvation, through the source of life/salvation. And as discussed above, Akin argues that this “source of life” (“light of life”) in this verse is the Holy Spirit, not Jesus (not that Jesus is not a source of life, but the Spirit is one as well). Whether the “light of life” here is Jesus or the Spirit is inconsequential to the argument here. The main point is that light seems to signify something as a “source of eternal life.” And again, John makes explicit that salvation consists of receiving eternal life.



John 12:35-36: “Jesus replied, ‘The light is with you for a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, so that the darkness may not overtake you. The one who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going. While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become sons of light.’ When Jesus had said these things, he went away and hid himself from them.”

In this verse, Jesus is referenced as “the light” and he asks his disciples to “walk while you have the light” so that they would not fall into a state of spiritual death. Jesus also warns his disciples what happens when one “walks in the darkness”; he or she “does not know where he or she is going.” This sentence is important for this discussion. As already mentioned, “light” in John primarily signifies salvation, eternal life, and the source of eternal life. But “light” in John also indirectly signifies righteousness/goodness. Those that have eternal life (“light”) live a life of obedience/righteousness (and those in spiritual death, or “darkness,” live a life of unrighteousness/evil). In addition, “light” also indirectly signifies a guide that leads one to life. Those that follow the guide to eternal life (the Word, Jesus) are on the right path, while those that do not follow his guidance are lost in the darkness. This is the implication of 12:25b. The person that does not walk in the light but walks in darkness “does not know where he is going.” Job 29:3 uses the image of light and darkness a similar way (see above discussion on this verse). The light acts as a guide through the darkness. The same applies here. The source of eternal life and salvation, the “light,” provides guidance to eternal life. In other words, the “light” is indeed the one that provides eternal life. As this discussion mentioned previously, “light” as a guide is closely associated with “light” as salvation and “light” as life. The destination that the guide leads one to is indeed life, which is salvation. So, to “walk in the darkness” is to live in a state of spiritual deadness, and the one that lives in this state does not follow the guiding light that is Jesus.
The first part of 12:36 is also noteworthy. It reads, “‘While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become sons of light.’” Interestingly, the Dead Sea Scrolls use the images of light and darkness to contrast goodness and evil. In fact, the writers used the phrase “sons of light” to signify those that were righteous and “sons of darkness” to signify those that were evil [Keener, IVP Bible Background Commentary, John 12:35-36]. So, John’s audience and Jesus’ hearers would have been aware of the background of the phrase “sons of light.” Though in the Dead Sea Scrolls, “light” signifies righteousness, it seems that John is signifying eternal life directly and righteousness indirectly, again. Those that believe in the “light,” Jesus, become “children of light,” and the “children of light” are those that have received eternal life. Eternal life is the primary signification for light here for a few reasons. First, it would be strange if John were to use “light” in the same way throughout his Gospel and then switch the meaning for one verse. Second, John and the rest of the New Testament maintain a consistent theme throughout: eternal life/salvation comes first and then the fruit of righteousness (good works, see, for example, John 15:5 and Eph. 2:8-10). Thus, belief results in a change of status before a change in condition. Third, John also maintains a consistent theme that belief results in receiving “light,” and that “light” is associated with eternal life (John 1:9; 8:12).
Fourth, John implies in his Gospel that to be a “child of the light” is to be one that is born again by the Spirit, which is to be one with eternal life. Earlier in the Gospel (8:12), Jesus says that those that believe receive the “light of life,” which results in eternal life/salvation. This “light of life” appears to be the Spirit, as this verse comes on the heels of John 7:37-39. In 7:37-39, Jesus teaches on the coming Spirit, saying, “‘Just as the Scripture says, ‘From within him will flow rivers of living water.’” The Spirit is the river that produces eternal life. It is interesting that Jesus is alluding to an Old Testament theme of what future salvation will look like (Isa. 44:3; 55:1; 58:11; Zech. 14:8). Isaiah 44:3, for example, says, “For I will pour water on the parched ground . . . I will pour my Spirit on your offspring . . . .” Isaiah makes the connection of water and the Spirit quite explicit. Zechariah 14:8 is even more pertinent. In this passage, God proclaims Israel’s future salvation using the image of a “living waters” as well. However, in this passage (14:7-8), the coming of the “living waters” coincides with the coming of “light.” So, in the day of Israel’s salvation, “light” will appear alongside of “living waters.” Back to John: after Jesus teaches John 7:37-39, the teaching is interrupted with the disagreement among the crowd over the identity of Jesus and the Jewish “officer’s” report to the Jewish authorities. Thus, when Jesus continues to teach the crowd (8:12), he continues from where he left off from 7:37-39—he is not teaching something different. He says that he is the “light of the world” and that those that believe in him will receive the “light of life.” Jesus appears to repeat his teaching from 7:37-39, but using slightly different imagery and verbiage. The common themes of believing in Jesus and receiving something that produces life remain in both passages. This is reason enough to see the repetition here, but even more importantly, Jesus uses the language of “rivers of living waters” and “light” in 7:37-39 and 8:12, respectively, and this is important because Zechariah 14:7-8 also uses both images within the context of future salvation—both signify salvation. When “light” appears, the “living waters” will flow from Jerusalem, and Jesus identifies himself as the “light of the world” that gives the “light of life” (8:12) and the “living waters” (7:38). This is another reason to believe that 7:37-39 and 8:12 convey the same meaning, as both passages use metaphors that are closely connected with salvation in the OT, and in the same Old Testament passage. Not only this, but Isaiah tends to use “light” (as already discussed) and “water”/”living waters” to reference future salvation elsewhere as well; they are somewhat interchangeable metaphors. So, “light” and “living waters” are both closely associated with salvation, and in John, salvation is equivalent to eternal life. Thus, John uses both images to reference eternal life, and John 7:37-39 is quite explicit in calling the Holy Spirit that agent of eternal life. Thus, if the “light of life” in 8:12 is the same as the “river of living water,” which seems to be the case, then the “light of life” is indeed the Holy Spirit. Now, Jesus could be referencing himself as the “light of life” (also the source of life), which makes sense out of other uses of “light” in John, but Jesus’ teaching on receiving the “light of life” is, as already stated, a continuation and repetition of 7:37-39. Plus, Jesus usually calls himself the “light” or the “light of the world.” This is the only instance in John where John uses “light of life.” The slight change is probably purposeful in order to distinguish the Holy Spirit from Jesus.
So, there is good reason now to call the Holy Spirit “light.” And if the Holy Spirit is a “light” (along with Jesus)—a source of eternal life/salvation—then it seems that the phrase “children of light” is referring to those that have received eternal life. So, how does one go from calling the Holy Spirit the “light of life” to interpreting “children of light” as those that received eternal life? Well, it starts with the story of Nicodemus and Jesus, specifically, Jesus’ teaching to Nicodemus on the necessity of new birth (3:1-15). There, Jesus says that only those that are “born” from “above” or by the “Spirit” are able to see the kingdom: “Jesus answered, ‘ . . . unless a person is born of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’” (3:5). To be born again is to be, then, a child of the Spirit (born by the Spirit). And to be born again by the Spirit is to enter into the kingdom. And to enter into the kingdom is to enter into salvation. And salvation in John is equivalent to eternal life. So, to be born again by the Spirit is to receive eternal life from the Spirit. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is called also called the “light of life,” so it probable that John connected the metaphor of “light” and Jesus’ teaching on new birth by the Spirit. This means that to be a “child of light” is to be born again by the Spirit. Thus, the “children of light” are those that have eternal life, but also those that are righteous. It is not that John is completely changing the historical meaning of the phrase “children of light”; rather, he is saying that the true righteous ones are the ones that have received eternal life through the Spirit (which comes through the Son). He is subverting the phrase “children of light.”


John 12:46: I have come as a light into the world, so that everyone who believes in me should not remain in darkness.

There is not too much to be said about this verse. It is self-explanatory. This discussion covered what it means it be a “light into the world” within the discussion of John 1:4. The sample applies to the term “darkness.” However, it is important to note that this is yet another verse that support the thesis of this paper: “light” signifies deliverance/salvation/a savior, as the verbiage is yet again similar to Isaiah. Jesus is the “light into the world” that Isaiah prophesied about.

I John 1:5: “Now this is the gospel message we have heard from him and announce to you: God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all”

So now the discussion comes full circle. It started with 1 John and now it ends with 1 John. If what was said it indeed true, not much discussion needs to take place in regards to how “light” is used in 1 John. However, it should be pointed out that John is saying that God the Father is “light” here. John, then, between this letter and the Gospel of John, calls all three persons of the trinity the “source of life.” So, John says that God is the source of eternal life, and there is no deadness (“lack of life”) in him in the slightest.

1 John 1:7: “But if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.”

Again, the expression of “walking in the light” does not need to be explained again at this point. However, this text does say that Jesus/God “is in the light.” This probably means that Jesus/God lives a life characterized as one with eternal life. Thus, John wants his readers to live a life characterized by eternal life in the same way as Jesus/God.

I John 2:8: “On the other hand, I am writing a new commandment to you which is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining.”

The term “true light” is also used in the Gospel of John to refer to Jesus; he is the savior of the world. Nothing more needs to be said.



I John 2:9-10: “The one who says he is in the light but still hates his fellow Christian is still in the darkness. The one who loves his fellow Christian resides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him.”

Here, John gives a sign for knowing whether a person is truly in the “light”: that person loves his fellow Christian brothers and sisters. The person that “resides in the light” is the one that lives in the realm of eternal life. Again, not much needs to be added on to what has already been said. However, these two verses to show additional support that “light” is connected to righteousness and that “darkness” is connected to unrighteousness (there is an indirect signification). These verses are saying that those that have eternal life love their Christian brothers and sisters.

Genesis 1 and John’s Prologue:

As Akin noted in his commentary, John’s prologue and the creation story of Genesis echo one another. In Genesis, God’s word creates the cosmos; in John, the Word creates the cosmos. In Genesis, there is a darkness that lingers over the earth, and God’s light pushes it back; in John, God’s light, the person of the Word, pushes back the darkness. But is John borrowing the meaning of Genesis 1? Before God’s creation of the light, the earth was formless and void, covered in watery deep and darkness (Gen. 1:1-2). In the ancient cosmologies of Babylon of Egypt, the watery deep represented the material that the gods created from, and in Babylonian literature, it represented that and a hostile force, specifically the god Tiamat, that the god Marduk created the earth from [Mathews, K. A. Genesis 1-11:26. Vol. 1A. The New American Commentary. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996),134]. However, in the Genesis account the waters are harmless and controlled by God, probably to show that the rival “gods” are not really gods, but the theme of hostile, deep waters, however, does develop in the Old Testament (Ps. 74:13; 69:2; 77:16). A “formless and void” earth in the context of Genesis is one that is in a deserted and desolate [Mathews, K. A. Genesis 1-11:26. Vol. 1A. The New American Commentary. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 131.]. Kenneth Matthews says, “It [Hebrew word] refers to unproductive, uninhabited land or has the sense futility and nonexistence” [Mathews, Genesis, 131]. Egyptian origin theology shares a similar concept to the Genesis concept of a “formless and void” earth—one that has is filled with “nonexistence” [Matthews, Victor Harold, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), Note on Gen. 1:2]. Not surprisingly, the idea that the earth was “formless and void” (or “without shape and empty”) also develops in the Old Testament. Jeremiah 4:23, in fact, uses the same Hebrew construction from Genesis 1:2, but in Jeremiah’s context, he is talking about the destruction of Judah [Mathews, Genesis, 132]. Finally, darkness in Genesis 1 seems to be a more physical darkness, as God even names it (Gen. 1:5), but the theme of darkness also develops, as this discussion has demonstrated. It develops significations for evil, death, and exile, for example. Thus, all of these Genesis 1:2 images develop into symbols for things that are opposed to God’s design. Even the destruction of Judah is pictured as something God will eventually end. He does not enjoy the destruction of the wicked, but does it to save Judah.
So, John is working with the developed symbolism of Genesis in his prologue. John is not working with the original, intended meaning of the Genesis text. For John, the darkness is not a physical darkness; darkness is rather spiritual death and exile. The light is not a physical light, but the savior of the world that gives eternal life to the spiritually dead.

The Hour of God’s Glory and God’s Glory/Light as Salvation in the Old Testament:

There is one more interesting theme in John that connects to the image of light that signifies God’s glory that brings salvation (category 9b). In John there is a theme known as the hour of God’s glory, and that hour is when Christ is crucified (John 7:39; 8:54; 11:40; 12:27-28; 13:31-32; 17:1, 5, 24). John 12:27-28, for example, reads, “‘No, but for this very reason I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name.’ Then a voice came from heaven, ‘I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.’ The hour that God’s glory is on full display is the hour that Christ died for the sins of all humanity and accomplished salvation. Now, remember, Isaiah talks about the future “light” that saves Israel from exile. More specifically, in Isaiah 60:1, Isaiah references the “light” as the glory of God that will bring deliverance. This discussion has already shown that Jesus is the “light” of Isaiah. John seems to further the connection by showing that God is the glory of God (“light”) that brings salvation as well (category 9b). Thus, this shows more evidence that Jesus is indeed “the light” of salvation that Isaiah spoke about.

Assessment and Conclusion:

Well, this whirlwind journey through the Old and New Testament is now complete. It has been shown that Daniel Akin is basically correct in his assessment. “Light” always signifies “the source of eternal life” and “the eternal life revealed by Jesus” (eternal life he gives to believers). However, there are some finer points that need to be cleared up.
First, Akin is wrong in his assessment of what it means to say that the Word has the quality of life. Akin seems to think that this is a statement on God’s self-existing life (not that he does not have that and not that that statement does not imply that either). However, as the discussion already mentioned, this simply means that the Word is the source of eternal life. After all, Jews believe that God’s word contained the key to eternal life (as already discussed). So, to say that the Word has life is to say that the person of the Word is the true source of eternal life. This Word, and not the other word, is the true way to receive eternal life. Second, because of this, there is no worry that John 1:4b could be reversed and therefore be interpreted as arguing for the divinity of mankind. To say “the life of humankind was the life [reversing the statement and replacing “light” with “life”]” is to simply state that the source of eternal life for humanity was the “the life,” the Word. The phrase “light of mankind” does not signify man’s life, but man’s source of eternal life.
Furthermore, even Akin himself seems to say something similar. He notes that “light” in the phrase “the light of humankind” means the “source of life” and does not simply mean a person’s life [Akin, 1 John, 64-65], although elsewhere, he seems to identify the word “light” in “light of humankind” as a person’s life [Akin, 1 John, 64, 65, note 78]; hence, he reasons John used “light” for this reason (the latter). If the latter were the case, then yes, Akin’s concerns would be valid. To say that, in different words, “a person’s life is the self-existing life of the Word” is to make humanity divine (in a more pantheistic way, it seems). But if Akin equates “light” and “life” and believes both mean “source of life” (the former meaning mentioned right above), which it seems as though he does since “light” is a metaphor for “life,” then it seems unclear, even with Akin’s own interpretation of John 1:4, how interchanging the verse would make man appear to be divine, unless he clearly believes “light” in the phrase “light of mankind” signifies a person’s life, which is unclear that he believes that. As already discussed, to say “the source of life” is the “the life” is not to say that humanity is divine. But, as noted above, Akin is somewhat unclear on what he even believes on the matter. So, to summarize briefly, even if John wrote, word-for-word, “And the life [instead of “light”] of mankind was the life,” he could not mean that a person’s life is equivalent to the divine, self-existing life (and thus divine), since “life of mankind” means source of man’s life,” even, so it seems, according to Akin.
In addition, even if John changed the word “life” to the word “light” to avoid confusion, it does not seem clear how that would solve the problem. If “light” is equivalent to a person’s life (and not “source of life”), then to say that the “light of humankind is the life” is to still say that humanity is divine, just with a metaphor instead of the literal word “life” that the metaphor signifies. Therefore, John did not incorporate the term “light” for the reason Akin believes; rather, he incorporated it, as mentioned above, in order to echo Isaiah. John wanted to make the points that Jesus was the savior of humanity, the “light” in Isaiah, and that salvation was equivalent to eternal life (see above).
And just because a Greek sentence is reversible, that does not mean the author allows it to be interpreted both ways. John wanted it interpreted according to the context of the sentence, and there is only, then, one way to interpret it. [I should explain this a little bit more. Talk about, possibly, the fallacy of interpreting two ways].
Second, Akin overvalues the parallels of John’s prologue with the Genesis creation story. At least in the Genesis story, there is no explicit evidence that the “light” is the source of life in creation. Granted, it seems John uses the symbols of light and dark, which are developed in the rest of the Old Testament, and reads those symbols back into the creation story. However, John does not use the symbol “light” because he thought “light” gave life in the Genesis story. There is no evidence of that in the Genesis story. God’s creative Word is what created life.
Third, Akin differentiates between Jesus as “light” and as the “true light’; Jesus as the source of life and Jesus as the source of eternal life. However, there is no evidence to back this up. Yes, Jesus as the “light” does come in the context of John’s Genesis 1 echo, but as this discussion already showed, John does not borrow the original meaning of the Genesis narrative. Plus, the “light” in Genesis 1 does not produce life. God’s word is what produces life. And Jesus as the “light” primarily signifies the one that provides eternal life/salvation for the entire world. This is further supported by the reference of Jesus as “the life” that is the “light of humankind.” Almost every single time John uses “life” without the adjective “eternal,” John is nonetheless signifying eternal life (John 3:26; 5:21, 24, 26, 29, 40; 6:33, 35, 48, 53, 63; 10:10; 14:6; 20:31). So even in the context of John’s creation narrative interpretation, he incorporates the concept of eternal life. And that “life” is the “light of mankind.”

1 John 1:5: "God is light" (Part 5)

This post follows my last post in this series. This will probably be my longest post in the series, but it is the post that will open the most eyes, I think. You should start to make some connections on your own, but I will put those connections together in the following posts on this topic. This post discusses the last few meanings of "light" in the Old Testament.


(7) Light signifies life/existence, and darkness signifies death/nonbeing (Job 3:4, 16, 20, 23; 18:6; 33:28; 33:30; Ps. 36:9):

In this first example, in Job 3:1-10, Job gives a speech in which he wishes he was never born. He hopes the day he was born perishes (3:1). In poetic fashion, paralleling 3:1, he repeats this message by using the images of darkness and light, asking that God “not let light shine on it” and “let darkness and the deepest shadow claim it” (3:4-5). Meaning, he wishes it never existed; this particular use of the metaphors of light and darkness conveys the idea of being and nonbeing more so than life and death, but these ideas are similar. To die is to cease to exist; to live is to exist (or being born is coming into existence).

Job 3:16, 20, and 23 use the metaphor of light to convey a similar concept. In 3:16, Job wishes that he had been a “stillborn” at childbirth (“infants who have never seen the light”) (3:16). The stillborn infant’s life ceases; it fails to see the “light.” Those infants that live eventually open their eyes and see the light. Granted, "light" here also signifies a literal light in a sense, as a baby that survives childbirth opens his or her eyes to the light of the sun, but it has a much deeper meaning than that. To see the "light" is to be alive and well, and in the context of this verse, it seems clear that Job has this in mind, as he wishes for the opposite of living through childbirth, death. Continuing on, in 3:20, using synonymous parallelism, Job rhetorically asks, “Why does God give light to the one who is in misery and life to those whose soul is bitter . . . ?” In the two lines of this one verse, Job repeats the same question using different words and images in each line; light and life are paralleled.[1] Then, just a couple of verses later, and within the same speech, Job asks, “Why is light given to a man whose way is hidden, and whom God has hedged in?” (3:23) Job repeats the same question from the previous few verses (and the verse above), but using different imagery—why doesn’t God simply end his life? It is clear that “light” equals life. Furthermore, this makes sense out of Job in general because, throughout the book, Job is constantly asking why God gives him life.

Job 18:6: “The light in his tent grows dark; his lamp above him is extinguished.”

This is another verse in which light symbolizes life and darkness death. Old Testament scholar Robert Alden says, “Elsewhere ‘dark’ refers to death (3:5; 10:21; 17:13), so at this point Bildad probably meant that the wicked will die.”[2] However, light, especially the image of the lamp, also symbolizes guidance in this book, so how can one know which “light” Bildad is referring to? The answer is found in Job 21:17. Here, Job responds to Bildad’s speech, arguing that the wicked person’s “lamp,” or light, is never put out when it should be. And in the context of 21:17, Job is referencing the lack of God’s punishment on the wicked, which leads to “pain,” “misfortune,” and being “swept away by a whirlwind.” In other words, Job is asking why the wicked never suffer proper punishment for their sins—suffering and death. Instead of dying, they live: “Why do the wicked go on living, grow old, even increase in power?” (21:7). Job is responding to Bildad’s idea that the wicked suffer and die. Therefore, “light” in 18:6 signifies life.

This theme continues in Job 33:28. Elihu says to Job, “He redeemed my life from going down to the place of corruption, and my life sees the light.” Elihu says these words right after saying that God brings terrifying dreams, revelations, and suffering in order to get a person to repent (33:14-27). It is in this context that Elihu uses the image of seeing the “light” in contrast to being in “the place of corruption,” which signifies being buried dead in the ground “in some pit.”[3] According to Elihu, then, God brings a person suffering in order to save him or her from being punished with death, being “in the place of corruption” (33:24), and instead he gives that person life. Therefore, this use of the term “light” signifies life, in contrast to being dead underground. He seems to be saying, “My life is given a second chance, even though I deserved death.” In fact, based on Job 33:30, which is only a couple of verses later, it is clear that light signifies life here, as the use of the term light in 33:30 (“light of life”) occurs in Elihu’s summation of his speech that occurs in 33:28, and the connection of light and life is quite explicit (“light of life”). Furthermore, the reference of “light” in 33:28 may be specifically signifying “the source of life” rather than “life,” based on the usage of light in 33:30 (which, really, is closely related regardless of which signification is being signified, life or source of life).

Job 33:30, which is also a part of Elihu’s same speech to job, is even more explicit in the connection of light and life. Elihu summarizes the previous section of his speech by saying, “Indeed, God does all these things . . . to turn back his life from the place of corruption, that he may be enlightened with the light of life” (33:29-30). In Elihu’s mind, God brings suffering and dreams in order to save a man or woman from death (“place of corruption”) and give him life (“light of life”).[4] Light clearly symbolizes life, at the very least, as the text explicitly says the “light of life.” But as mentioned above, in this instance, “light” seems to signify “a source of life” rather than just “life.” This is the case because Elihu calls the light the “light of life.” So, instead of simply saying, “That he may be enlightened with the light [life],” which is without the modifying words “of life,” Elihu says, “That he may be enlightened with the light of life [the light that gives life].” He could have easily used the word “light” by itself, as he did in 33:28 (and elsewhere), but he included the modifying words “of life” seemingly in order to state and clarify the function of the light—it gives life. And even if Elihu is saying that the light has the quality of life, not that it gives life, the connotation remains the same: the “light” that has life is given to a person (he is “enlightened”), and that person then has life. Thus, the “light of life” gives life or is the source of life.

Proverbs 13:9 says, “The light of the righteous shines brightly, but the lamp of the wicked goes out.” This verse is similar to Job 18:6; both verses involve the imagery of the lamp of a wicked person going out. And in Job 18:6, as discussed above, the lamp going out signifies death, and thus light signifies life. This same idea fits the context of Proverbs 13:9, where the writer speaks on the rewards of righteous living and the consequences of unrighteousness. So, the writers says that the life of the righteous person will shine, while the life of the wicked person will be ended.


(8) Light signifies righteousness/goodness (contrasted with darkness, which signifies evil/) (Job 24:13; Isa. 5:20): Job 24:13 says, “There are those who rebel against the light; they do not know its ways and they do not stay on its paths.” In the immediate context of this verse (24:1-25), Job is responding to one of his friends on the subject of the God’s ignorance of those who are practicing wrongdoing. In the preceding verse, Job says, “From the city the dying groan, and the wounded cry out for help, but God charges no one with wrongdoing” (24:12). And in the proceeding verse, Job says, “Before daybreak the murderer rises up; he kills the poor and the needy; in the night he is like a thief.” It seems the author of Job is paralleling (synonymous parallelism) these explicit works of evil with one that is not in line with the “ways” of the light. Because “light” is contrasted with evil deeds, it seems that “light” signifies righteousness; evildoers do not follow the way of righteousness. Therefore, in this instance, light signifies righteousness and goodness.[5] And in 24:16-17, Job contrasts light and dark by associating evildoers with the darkness; they love the darkness.

Isaiah 5:20 is another example in which the images of light and dark signify good/righteousness and evil/unrighteousness, respectively. Isaiah says, “Those who call evil good and good evil are as good as dead, who turn darkness into light and light into darkness, who turn bitter into sweet and sweet into bitter” (5:20). The author of Isaiah appears to be using synonymous parallelism to make his point that those that distort the standards of God are going to be judged negatively. Thus, at least in this verse, light signifies goodness/righteousness, and darkness signifies evil/unrighteousness, since he is repeating the first line of 5:20 with different imagery (“good” and “evil” are replaced with “light” and “darkness”). Indeed, Gary Smith seems to agree, noting, “The second woe laments [commenting on 5:20] the consequent deterioration of morality among those who reject God.”[6] While Smith does not directly comment on what light and darkness signify, it is clear that he believes this verse has to do with “morality,” which has to do with our ethical behavior, or righteousness and unrighteousness.

While not the Old Testament, the Dead Sea scrolls are also pertinent texts in regards to the use of the term “light,” especially as it relates to John and 1 John. The scroll’s usage of “light” fits into this category. Craig Keener notes:

Other Jewish texts (especially the Dead Sea Scrolls) also used the light-darkness image to contrast the followers of righteousness with those of sin, regarding God as wholly righteous. The Old Testament also affirmed that God was wholly righteous (e.g., Ps 92:15).[7]

Thus, light signified righteousness and darkness unrighteousness in the Qumran community. This is important since John and Jesus lived and breathed around the same time these documents were written, so it could give hints as to how John uses the term “light,” as Keener argues.


(9a)[8] Light signifies salvation/deliverance, and darkness signifies condemnation/judgment/exile (Isa. 2:5; 5:30; 9:2; 30:26; 42:6; 45:7; 49:6, 9; 50:10; 58:8, 10; 59:9; Jer. 4:23; Jer. 13:16; Amos 5:18, 20; Micah 7:8-9; Zech. 14:6-7): Since this is the category with the most verses, specifically is Isaiah and other prophets, the discussion will not include every single verse.

Isaiah 2:5 is, not surprisingly, a debatable verse in regards to the meaning of the term “light.” Some take “light” to signify God’s guiding law (category 6 above), and others take it to mean God’s future deliverance/salvation of Israel.[9] Thus, to “walk in the LORD’s light” (HCSB) is to live in God’s salvation. Both are possible and make sense of the context. In Isaiah 2:1-5, Isaiah is prophesying about a future time when the nations of the world will come to “Zion” and want to learn and follow the commandments of God. God will also bring about the peace of the nations, ending all warfare and bloodshed between nations. Isaiah ends this short section by exhorting Israel to “walk in the LORDS’s light” (2:5, HCSB). Now, Isaiah could be simply asking Israel follow God’s commandments, and thus light signifies God’s guiding commandments. After all, Isaiah does speak about a future time when the all of the nations will obey God’s commandments (2:3). So, God is commanding Israel to proleptically follow his commandments.

However, it makes more sense of Isaiah and the immediate context of 2:5 if light signifies future salvation, and as this analysis will show, this meaning combines both meanings. Isaiah is prophesying about a future time of salvation when the nations will obey God’s commandments and war will cease. It is significant that future salvation here is equivalent to a time of obedience. These concepts do not contradict one another; the future salvation will bring about obedience to God and peace on earth. Therefore, to “walk in the LORD’s light” (HCSB) is to live in God’s salvation, and that looks like following God’s commandments. One proleptically lives in God’s future salvation by obeying the commands of God now. Not only does this meaning fit the immediate context, but it makes sense out of the usage of “light” in the rest of Isaiah, as this analysis bear out.

Isaiah 9:2 uses light in the same way, to signify salvation. Old Testament scholar Gary smith says, “At this point [9:2] light is not identified, but it was certainly a sign of hope and deliverance from the darkness that pervaded the land.”[10] This appears to true, as “light” is used in the context of God speaking about the end of Israel’s exile. This light will save Israel from the darkness of exile (8:22), end the oppression of Israel (9:4), and make Israel great again (9:3). Therefore, light saves; it signifies salvation, and darkness exile. Also pertinent is the agent of salvation in section in 9:6, which reads: “For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us. He shoulders responsibility and is called: Extraordinary Strategist, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace.”

Isaiah 30:26 is a verse in Isaiah that uses the term “light” in association with salvation and deliverance. Here, the prophet says, “The light of the full moon will be like the sun’s glare and the sun’s glare will be seven times brighter . . . when the LORD binds up his people’s fractured bones and heals their severe wound.” Again, the term “light” is used in the context in the future deliverance of Israel. Granted, “light” here is not the agent of salvation, but it does say that “light” will shine when Israel’s salvation occurs. So, light does not signify salvation directly, but it is closely associated with salvation.

Isaiah 42:6 is another significant verse in this discussion. It reads, “I, the LORD, officially commission you [the servant]; I take hold of your hand. I protect you and make you a covenant mediator for people, and a light to the nations.” It is clear that “light” signifies salvation/deliverance here, or one that saves[11], as the next verse says that this light has the job “to open blind eyes, to release prisoners from dungeons, those who live in darkness from prisons” (42:7). The “light to the nations” frees prisoners, or saves them. In other word, the light, the servant in Isaiah, is commissioned to save the nations from darkness, or exile.

Isaiah 49:6 closely parallels Isaiah 42:6, as 49:6b reads, “‘I will make you [Israel] a light to the nations, so that you can bring my deliverance to the remote regions of the earth.’” Again, light explicitly signifies salvation (or one that brings salvation); the light brings deliverance to the nations. God will make Israel a “covenant mediator for people, to rebuild the land and to reassign the desolate property” (49:8b). And darkness is contrasted with the light—it signifies exile and/or prison (49:9).

Moving onto Jeremiah, Jeremiah 13:6 is quite explicit in its connection of darkness with exile and light with salvation. The second part of the verse reads, “Do it [respect for God] before he turns the light of deliverance you hope for into the darkness and gloom of exile” (13:6b). There is no mystery here; the text explicitly calls exile darkness and deliverance light, so nothing further needs to be added.

Isaiah 59:9 reads, “For this reason deliverance is far from us and salvation does not reach us. We wait for light, but see only darkness; we wait for a bright light, but live in deep darkness. The prophet says that salvation from exile is far away, and in the context of this passage, it is because of sin (59:12). There is no chance of salvation with the state that Israel is in. The second part of the verse seems to repeat the same concept but with the image of light and darkness. Just as the prophet says that salvation is far away, or not present, the “light” is not present, but only “darkness”, or exile, is present. Israel is in a state of exile. The prophet appears to be using synonymous parallelism; the second line repeats the concept in the first line but using different verbiage. So, because of this, “light” signifies salvation/deliverance and “darkness” judgment/exile. Not only can one make this conclusion because of these reasons, but also as already demonstrated, “light” in Isaiah mostly signifies salvation/deliverance. This is another verse in an already established pattern.

Lamentations 3:3 is yet another text in which light and darkness signify salvation/deliverance and exile/judgment, respectively. It reads, “He drove me into captivity and made me walk in darkness and not light.” Commentating on this verse, Old Testament scholar F.B. Huey Jr. writes:

The author understood that the ‘affliction’ (‘poverty,’ LXX) he had experienced was imposed by the rod of God’s judgment (2 Sam 7:14; Job. 9:34; Pss 2:9; 89:32; Isa 10:5; Mic 5:1) The alienation from God’s favor is described as being ‘driven away’ (nāhag, cf. 1 Sam 30:20; Job 24:3). It also is compared to darkness (cf. Job 12:25; Ps 82:5; Isa 50:10; Amos 5:18).[12]

The author of Lamentations wrote this book after Judah’s destruction and during exile in Babylon. The book is a series of laments about God’s judgment on Judah. Thus, exile, or “captivity,” is described as darkness, as opposed to light, which is being in “God’s favor.” God drove Judah into a state of condemnation, not salvation.

Amos 5:18 speaks on the coming judgment of God, not salvation. However, the metaphors of “light” and “darkness” remain basically the same. God warns that the “day of the Lord” will bring about judgment, and that this judgment will be exile (5:27). God uses the metaphor of “darkness” to describe the coming judgment: “Woe to those who wish for the day of the LORD! Why do you want the LORD’s day of judgment to come? It will bring darkness, not light.” Israel expected God to defeat her enemies and bring blessing on the “day of the LORD.”[13] Thus, “light” signifies deliverance, not from exile, but from the enemy nations that waged war on Israel, but the points remains the same.

Zechariah 14:7 is the last verse that is significant in this category. In the section that includes this verse, God promises salvation to Israel on the “day of the LORD,” saying, “And people will settle there, and there will no longer be the threat of divine extermination—Jerusalem will dwell in security” (14:11). God will destroy Israel’s enemies (14:12-15), and God will become “king over all the earth” (14:9). God associates this day with the coming of “light” (14:7). Thus, while “light” does not signify salvation directly, it is associated with the day of salvation. In addition, 14:8 is especially important for John’s usage of light: “Moreover, on that day living waters will flow out from Jerusalem, half of them to the eastern sea and half of them to the western sea; it will happen both in the summer and the winter.” This is an image of what the future salvation will look like.


(9b) Light signifies God or God’s Glory that brings salvation, and darkness signifies condemnation and judgment (Isa. 10:17; 60:1, 3, 19-20): There are several verses in the Old Testament in which light signifies God’s glory in connection with future salvation. As this discussion will show, this is also an important distinction that plays into John’s usage of the term light.

In Isaiah 10:17, God is warning about the coming future judgment of Assyria for not properly giving glory to God for its military victories over Israel (10:15-16). God describes what he is going to do to Assyria by referring to himself as “the light of Israel”: “The light of Israel will become a fire, their Holy One will become a flame; it will burn and consume the Assyrian king’s briers and his thorns in one day” (10:17). The parallelism in this verse is apparent—The Holy One, God, is the “light of Israel.” Now, it seems as though “light” here is associated with judgment and not salvation; however, these two themes cannot be separated, as the judgment of Assyria by the “light” leads to salvation for Israel (at least the remnant): “At that time those left in Israel, those who remain of the family of Jacob, will no longer rely on a foreign leader that abuses them” (10:20). The light saves the remnant from oppression. It is also notable that “light” does not directly signify salvation/deliverance, but it signifies the one who carries out salvation/deliverance. Either way, it is a distinction without much of a difference. For example, one could argue Jesus is just as much equivalent to salvation as he is the one that brings salvation.

Isaiah 60:1 describes the coming of Israel’s “light” as the coming of the glory of God (“Splendor of the LORD”), and 60:1-22 describes the salvation that results from the coming of this light. So while “light” technically signifies that which brings salvation, God’s glory, and not salvation directly, it is still appropriate to put in this category since light is associated with salvation. And this coming of God’s light for salvation coincides with the coming of God’s special servant, who is “commissioned . . . to encourage the poor, to help the brokenhearted, and decree the release of the captives, and the freeing of prisoners, to announce the year when the LORD will show his favor” (61:1-2a). One commentator notes that the “darkness” mentioned in 60:2 is probably not signifying Israel’s exile, as in other some other verses, but more of the general “doom” and “gloom” of the future situation the world will find itself in.[14] However, 60:14-15 indicate that the “light” saves Israel from exile, as the text assumes Israel is oppressed by a foreign enemy, and God has abandoned Israel; thus, “darkness” signifies exile/judgment/condemnation. Also, the speeches that come immediately before this one (59:1-21) and after it (61:1-11; 62:1-8) talk about God’s future judgment of the wicked and salvation/deliverance from exile (61:4; 62:4). Thus, “darkness” in 60:1 most likely signifies exile/judgment/condemnation. Granted, “darkness” here covers the whole world, not just Israel, but this fits the New Testament theme that the whole world was in exile, or in Paul’s language, under the curse (Gal. 3:10, 13).

_______________________________

[1]Robert Alden, Job, 78.

[2]Ibid., 196.

[3]Ibid., 330.

[4]Ibid., 331.

[5]Ibid., 248.

[6]Gary V. Smith, Isaiah 1–39, Edited by E. Ray Clendenen, The New American Commentary (Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2007), 178.

[7]Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 1 John 1:5 note.

[8]I want to note that “light” may potentially signify the agent of salvation rather than salvation itself, but it is not much a difference. It is a distinction without MUCH of a difference, although a slight different exists, ever so slight of a difference. I will note the verses where the difference exists.

[9]Smith, Isaiah 1-39, 131, note 34.

[10]Ibid., 238.

[11]Gary Smith, Isaiah 40-66, Vol. 15B, The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2009), 167.

[12]F. B. Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Vol. 16, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 470.

[13]Billy K. Smith and Franklin S. Page, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Vol. 19B, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 110.

[14]Gary Smith, Isaiah 40-66, 614.

Review of "Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek," by Constantine R. Campbell (Part 2)

In the last post in this particular series, this review summarized Campbell's introduction, which introduced his purpose for writing the book. In the first chapter, Campbell introduces his definition of verbal aspect and verbal aspect's relation to semantics and pragmatics.

Campbell gives this basic definition of aspect: "While there are various ways of defining verbal aspect, the simplest description is viewpoint. An author or speaker views an action, event, or state either from the outside or from the inside. The view . . . from the outside is called perfective aspect, while the view from the inside is called imperfective aspect" (19). Campbell gives an oft-used illustration of verbal aspect, a report on a parade. Imagine that a reporter is viewing a parade from outside the parade in a helicopter; this is perfective aspect. He or she sees the whole parade from beginning to end, but does not see the parade up close. Now, imagine a reporter is viewing a parade from the street as the parade is going by; this is imperfective aspect. He or she sees the parade as it is going by, but does not see its beginning or end. In other words, the perfective aspect presents the action of a verb a simple whole, from beginning to end, and the imperfective aspect presents the action of the verb as a continuing action, without reference to the beginning or end. Remember the the above illustration. The view from the helicopter is a view of the whole event. One can see the beginning and the end of the parade from a helicopter; on the street, however, one does not see the whole parade from that view, but he or she sees it progressing.

Examples are always helpful in explaining a concept, so here are a couple of English sentences to distinguish further the two aspects.

Christian wrote a blog post the other day (perfective).

Christian was witting a blog post the other day (imperfective).

See, even English uses aspect! Using either one, one still presents the same action, but the view of the action is different. The first sentence simply states that it happened. The second sentence presents the action as a progressing action, but it still happened, although the beginning and end of the action is not inherent.

Campbell, then, compares and contrasts aspect with aktionsart and tense. Tense refers to the time of the action (e.g. future, past, etc.) and aktionsart, a German word, refers to the "'type of action'" (21). For example, a verb's "type of action" can be intensive, customary, gnomic, iterative, etc. Typically, Greek verbs are referred to by their tense, but Campbell believes tense in these instances refers to the form of a verb, not a verb's inherent meaning; thus, tense is not a necessary part of a particular verb. The same is true of aktionsart. The "type of action" is not inherent in a particular verb. The only one that is inherent in any particular verb is aspect. Campbell explains this concept by distinguishing between semantics and pragmatics. Semantics, in this case, refers to the qualities that are a necessary part of a given verb form. Pragmatics refers to the qualities of a verb that only come from a verb's particular context, its interaction with the literary and historical context of where it is used.

Review of "Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek," by Constantine R. Campbell (Part 1)

One of the reasons I started this blog is for the purpose of reviewing books that I am currently reading. Right now, I am reading through Constantine Campbell's nice little book on verbal aspect of Greek. I am still learning about verbal aspect as I go along, so I am certainly not an expert on the issue, but I hope you join with me in learning more about it along the way. So, without further adieu . . .

Campbell, Constantine R. Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008.

So who is Constantine Campbell? Well, he an expert in Biblical Greek. He received his PhD from Macquarie University and is lecturer in Greek and New Testament at Moore Theological College in Australia. Other than this book on verbal aspect, Campbell has written other books on verbal aspect, Greek studies, union with Christ, and a commentary, including Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study, Advances in the Study of Greek: New Insights for Reading the New Testament, and Colossians and Philemon: A Handbook on the Greek Text.

Campbell's purpose in this book is to present an accessible overview of Biblical Greek verbal aspect, knowing full-well that most books on the subject are meant for fellow scholars (11). He wants readers to see both positive and negative insights that come from knowing verbal aspect while reading the New Testament in Greek. Negatively, he wants readers to see the errors of both scholars and pastors alike because of misunderstanding of Greek verbs. For example, many pastors and scholars in the past have argued that in Romans 5:6 the aorist verb describes a once-and-for-all action. This, however, does not come from the aorist verb (13). Positively, he wants readers to see the new exegetical possibilities that can come from understanding verbal aspect. For example, what if in 2 Timothy 4:6-7, Paul is not describing the end of his ministry ("I have fought," "I have finished," "I have kept the faith")? What if these verbs should be translated "more like present indicatives"? (15). Finally, Campbell's purpose for this book is argumentative as well, as he argues that against past and current scholars on debatable issues in the field of verbal aspect.

This review of Campbell's book will go one chapter at a time, a blog post for each chapter. And then at the end, I will try to bring out some positive insights and negative critiques and whether the book and its conclusions are significant for reading and understanding the New Testament.

Heck, a review of chapter one might even come a little bit later on tonight.

1 John 1:5: "God is light" (Part 4)

Old Testament View on Light:


Akin argues that the description “God is light” means that God is the source of life, and he argues that "light" signifies the eternal life God gives to people. It seems Akin’s argument is cogent, for the most part. The best resource to get an idea into what light could signify is the Old Testament, since Jesus was the fulfillment of Old Testament hopes and since Jesus’ and John’s audience were saturated in the Old Testament. As this study reveals, in the Old Testament, the term “light” has a variety of significations. Now, this study is not necessarily a comprehensive study, as this discussion will not dissect every single verse listed under each category, and some might disagree with how this discussion has categorized the various significations of light, but that is ok.

It should also be noted that a critique of Akin’s view will come after the Old Testament view of “light” is finished, as that discussion will help one see how Akin is both correct in some ways and incorrect in others.

(1) The first signification is simply the literal meaning: light is simply the source of vision during the day or the night; it makes things visible (Gen. 1:17). It is the sun, moon, etc.


(2) Light signifies something or someone that reveals something unknown that only God knows (Job 12:22; John 3:20):

Job 12:22: “He reveals the deep things of darkness, and brings deep shadows into the light.”

This verse is straightforward: the light reveals what was previously in the dark.[1] In other words, the light reveals something unknown that one was unaware of previously (“dark”). Now, some may not appreciate the vague words “something” or “something unknown,” but the verses and image lend itself to this lack of clarity. It is unclear as to what is revealed in “the light.”[2]

John 3:20: “For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed.”

Interestingly, as this discussion will show, “light” can have a secondary signification in any single instance, and John 3:20 seems to be a prime example for this category. While the primary signification will be discussed further along, it is clear here that “light” signifies that which exposes something unknown (to others), evil deeds.


(3) Light signifies wisdom/knowledge (Dan. 2:22; Ecc. 2:13-14): This verse, Daniel 2:22, could also potentially be listed under category two above, but it relates to this category better. Either way, both categories are similar. In this category, light signifies “something unknown” itself rather than something or someone that reveals said “something unknown.”

Praising God’s wisdom and power, Daniel says: “He [God] reveals deep and hidden things. He knows what is in the darkness, and light resides with him.” Essentially, Daniel is saying that God knows and reveals information that humanity does not and cannot know and is unaware of, and that God has that knowledge that is unknown within him.[3] In other words, God is knowledgeable and wise.


(4) Light signifies a temporary blessing or reward (Ps. 112:4): Psalm 112:4 reads, “In the darkness a light shines for the godly, for each one who is merciful, compassionate, and just.” In the context of this verse, the psalmist praises the one who obeys the commands of God, saying that he will be rewarded with temporary blessings (e.g. wealth and power). Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the imagery of light signifies temporary blessing as well—it is a metaphor to further describe the blessings for the one who obeys God.


(5) Light signifies God’s immanence/presence with his people (Ex. 13:21; 14:24; 19:18):[4] Exodus 13:21 reads, “Now the LORD was going before them . . . by night in a pillar of fire to give them light.” In this verse and the book of Exodus, fire (a source of light, Ex. 13:21) often signifies God’s presence. God encountered Moses in the burning bush; God “confuses” the Egyptian army through the pillar of fire (Ex. 14:23); on Mount Sinai, God appears to Israel and Moses in the form of a fire (Ex. 19:18). The fire was not only a guide or a literal, physical light, but God was in some sense in it (“The LORD had descended on it in fire”-Ex. 19:18). Thus, it signifies his presence.


(6) Light signifies that which acts as a guide (sometimes that guide is the law or God’s word) (Ex. 13:21; Prov. 6:23; Job 22:28; 29:3; Ps. 119:105): The fire, or light, in Exodus 13:21 signified God’s presence; however, the fire also served the function of providing a "light" for the Israelites as they traveled by night. Thus, "fire" here functions as a guide to land of Israel; and the "light" the fire provides signifies that which guides. A similar signification occurs during Eliphaz’s speech to Job in Job 22:28, which reads, “Whatever you decide on the matter, it will be established for you, and the light will shine on your ways [added emphasis].” This use of the term light lends itself to the image of someone providing light for Job as walks a path so that he will not follow the wrong way. In his commentary on Job, Robert Alden agrees, “Job used a similar figure of a divinely illuminated path when he described the days prior to the present troubles (29:2-3; cf. Prov 18-19).”[5]

The same image comes to mind in Job 29:3, as God provides light as Job in walking in a dark place; it guides him along his way. Psalm 119:105 presents light in the same way—it guides people; God’s word is the light that guides the Psalmist on how to follow God.

Finally, in Proverbs 6:23, the writers says, “For the commandments are like a lamp [added emphasis], instruction is like a light [added emphasis], and rebukes of discipline are like the road [added emphasis] leading to life.” The author of the proverb is apparently using synonymous parallelism[6] to describe the father’s words (“commands of your father”—6:20) to his son; his words are a lamp, light, and road. The metaphors of a lamp and road to describe the father’s words to his son convey the concept that his words are a source of guidance,[7] just as a person needs a lamp in the dark to find his way to a destination (as Israel needed the pillar of fire in the dark) or a person needs a road to go from point A to point B. And since light is parallel to these images, it is safe to conclude that the metaphor of light in this instance signifies guidance. In addition, the author of the proverb explicitly states as much by saying that the father’s words are a “road leading to life,” which conveys the image of a road being a tool to get from one point to another—it is a guide. It is also interesting to note that this guide leads to life. In a way, this verse can fit into category seven (7) as well, as it is a light that leads to life—it is a source of life.

The other three significations for light will be saved for the next post, as they are the longest and more pertinent to John's usage of "light."


______________________________

[1]Robert L. Alden, Job, Vol. 11, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 155. Alden is a little too brief in his commentary of this verse, but he seems to agree with me, as he cites two verses, Amos 5:8 and Daniel 2:22, that are closer the signification I argue for.

[2]It is evil deeds, for example, or maybe some bit of information (or maybe something else). I do not want to qualify the signification if it is hard to specify the metaphor any further.

[3]Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, Vol. 18, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 87.

[4]Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, Vol. 2, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 327.

[5]Alden, Job, 238.

[6]Synonymous parallelism is a Jewish poetic device that repeats a concept in one line with different imagery and/or words in the following line. It is often found in Old Testament wisdom and poetic literature.

[7]Duane A. Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Vol. 14, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 100.