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.
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
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.
Thursday, March 24, 2016
1 John 1:5: "God is light" (Part 3)
In a previous post, we noted that Daniel Akin believes “light” signifies God/Jesus as the “source of life/eternal life.” In this follow-up post, we will see that Akin also believes that “light” signifies the eternal life that he gives to believers through faith.
Though Akin concludes the description of God as “light” refers to God being the source of life (1 John 1:5), Akin argues that the other times 1 John uses “light,” John is signifying “the eternal life revealed by Jesus,”[1] and this phrase seems signify the eternal life that man possess as a result of faith in Jesus. So, for example, Akin conclude that to “walk in the light” (1:7) does not signify walking in “the source of life”; rather, he concludes that this means to walk in the “eternal life that Jesus has revealed to man,” that is, the eternal life he gives man (“the light brought by Jesus”).[2] In other words, contrasting this with John’s use of the darkness metaphor, to “walk in the light” is to be “walking in the ‘fullness of life (revealed by Jesus, the Source of life),’” and to walk in the darkness is to be “walking ‘in the realm/state of death.’”[3] And more specifically, “walking in the ‘fullness of life [eternal life]’” consists of loving one’s spiritual brother and sister, and “walking ‘in the real/state of death’” consists of hating one’s spiritual brother and sister.[4]
Akin’s evidences for this view come from both 1 John and John. From 1 John, he argues that 1 John 2:8-19 supports this view for four reasons. First, since 2:8b says, “The true light is already shining,” Jesus cannot be the referent for this instance of the usage of “true light” because, according to Akin, the light is “shinning from past to present.”[5] Akin seems to think that since the “light” is presently “shining” and Jesus is not present physically, then the “light” cannot signify Jesus here. Second, since John contrasts “light” with “darkness,” he is most likely contrasting works of righteousness created by the eternal life given by Jesus with the “realm of death.”[6] Akin could be clearer with this point, but he essentially seems to argue that since light is associated with good works and darkness with evil works in this section, for the “true light to be already shining” (2:8) is for one’s eternal life to do what it is supposed to do—create works of righteousness. And darkness, then, signifies spiritual death as opposed to spiritual, eternal life, and possessing that produces works of evil. Third, he argues for this signification of “light” since, according to Akin, John assumes the “realization” of the “love commandment” (2:8) in a Christian is grounded in his Christian readers already having eternal life (“light”) “realized” in them.[7] Essentially, Akin believes that since John’s Christian audience is already obeying the love commandment, they then are allowing the light, which is eternal life given to believers, to shine in them. Fourth, Akin argues that 2:9-14 is an explanation of 2:8, and in 2:9-14, “light” signifies eternal life given by Jesus;[8] thus, “true light” in 2:8 signifies the eternal life that Jesus gives, not Jesus himself.
Akin also examines a few passages from the Gospel of John to make his point that the term “light” also signifies the “eternal life revealed by Jesus,” as opposed to Jesus himself. First, he argues from John 3:19, arguing that the contrast between “darkness” and “light” in 3:19 (“loved the darkness rather than light”) is the reason that “light” signifies the “eternal life revealed by Jesus” and not Jesus himself, “the source of life,” although he does argue the first reference to light in this verse (“The light has come”) is a reference to Jesus (see especially footnote 98).[9] Second, Akin argues that 3:16-21 is an extended commentary on Jesus’ teaching to Nicodemus on the necessity of new birth. Thus, the metaphors of being “born again” (Nicodemus episode, John 3:1-15) and “coming to the light” (3:16-21) both refer to receiving eternal life as revealed by Jesus.[10] Finally, Akin concludes his argument by examining John 8:12, which reads: “Then Jesus spoke to them again: “I am the light of the world. Anyone who follows Me will never walk in the darkness but will have the light of life.” Essentially, Akin interprets the first mention of light (“I am the light of the world”) as referencing Jesus as the “source of life,” but the second mention (“the light of life”) signifies the eternal life Jesus brings/reveals/gives to people.[11] His reasoning is that this verse is a commentary on Jesus’ words in 7:37-39 in which Jesus offers the Holy Spirit, or “streams of living water” to drink, to those that believe.[12] The Holy Spirit is the the "internal Source of eternal life" for the believer, keeping a Christian attached the thee "source of eternal life," Jesus Christ.[13] Thus, because 8:12 is a commentary on 7:37-39, Akin seems to associate the Holy Spirit's gift of living water in 7:37-39 with the “light of life” in 8:12, and therefore the image of light is associated with the eternal life given by Jesus.
____________________________
[1]Akin, 1 John, 69. As a reminder, Akin differentiates between “eternal life” and regular life. In some instances (e.g. John 1:4 and 1 John 1:5) the term “light” signifies regular life or God as the source of regular life; however, Akin seems to believe this is the exception, not the rule.
[2]Ibid., 69-70.
[3]Ibid., 69.
[4]Ibid., 69-70.
[5]Ibid., 70.
[6]Ibid., 70.
[7]Ibid., 70.
[8]Ibid., 70.
[9]Ibid., 67-69, note 98.
[10]Ibid., 67-68.
[11]Ibid., 68.
[12]Ibid., 68.
[13]Ibid., 68.
Though Akin concludes the description of God as “light” refers to God being the source of life (1 John 1:5), Akin argues that the other times 1 John uses “light,” John is signifying “the eternal life revealed by Jesus,”[1] and this phrase seems signify the eternal life that man possess as a result of faith in Jesus. So, for example, Akin conclude that to “walk in the light” (1:7) does not signify walking in “the source of life”; rather, he concludes that this means to walk in the “eternal life that Jesus has revealed to man,” that is, the eternal life he gives man (“the light brought by Jesus”).[2] In other words, contrasting this with John’s use of the darkness metaphor, to “walk in the light” is to be “walking in the ‘fullness of life (revealed by Jesus, the Source of life),’” and to walk in the darkness is to be “walking ‘in the realm/state of death.’”[3] And more specifically, “walking in the ‘fullness of life [eternal life]’” consists of loving one’s spiritual brother and sister, and “walking ‘in the real/state of death’” consists of hating one’s spiritual brother and sister.[4]
Akin’s evidences for this view come from both 1 John and John. From 1 John, he argues that 1 John 2:8-19 supports this view for four reasons. First, since 2:8b says, “The true light is already shining,” Jesus cannot be the referent for this instance of the usage of “true light” because, according to Akin, the light is “shinning from past to present.”[5] Akin seems to think that since the “light” is presently “shining” and Jesus is not present physically, then the “light” cannot signify Jesus here. Second, since John contrasts “light” with “darkness,” he is most likely contrasting works of righteousness created by the eternal life given by Jesus with the “realm of death.”[6] Akin could be clearer with this point, but he essentially seems to argue that since light is associated with good works and darkness with evil works in this section, for the “true light to be already shining” (2:8) is for one’s eternal life to do what it is supposed to do—create works of righteousness. And darkness, then, signifies spiritual death as opposed to spiritual, eternal life, and possessing that produces works of evil. Third, he argues for this signification of “light” since, according to Akin, John assumes the “realization” of the “love commandment” (2:8) in a Christian is grounded in his Christian readers already having eternal life (“light”) “realized” in them.[7] Essentially, Akin believes that since John’s Christian audience is already obeying the love commandment, they then are allowing the light, which is eternal life given to believers, to shine in them. Fourth, Akin argues that 2:9-14 is an explanation of 2:8, and in 2:9-14, “light” signifies eternal life given by Jesus;[8] thus, “true light” in 2:8 signifies the eternal life that Jesus gives, not Jesus himself.
Akin also examines a few passages from the Gospel of John to make his point that the term “light” also signifies the “eternal life revealed by Jesus,” as opposed to Jesus himself. First, he argues from John 3:19, arguing that the contrast between “darkness” and “light” in 3:19 (“loved the darkness rather than light”) is the reason that “light” signifies the “eternal life revealed by Jesus” and not Jesus himself, “the source of life,” although he does argue the first reference to light in this verse (“The light has come”) is a reference to Jesus (see especially footnote 98).[9] Second, Akin argues that 3:16-21 is an extended commentary on Jesus’ teaching to Nicodemus on the necessity of new birth. Thus, the metaphors of being “born again” (Nicodemus episode, John 3:1-15) and “coming to the light” (3:16-21) both refer to receiving eternal life as revealed by Jesus.[10] Finally, Akin concludes his argument by examining John 8:12, which reads: “Then Jesus spoke to them again: “I am the light of the world. Anyone who follows Me will never walk in the darkness but will have the light of life.” Essentially, Akin interprets the first mention of light (“I am the light of the world”) as referencing Jesus as the “source of life,” but the second mention (“the light of life”) signifies the eternal life Jesus brings/reveals/gives to people.[11] His reasoning is that this verse is a commentary on Jesus’ words in 7:37-39 in which Jesus offers the Holy Spirit, or “streams of living water” to drink, to those that believe.[12] The Holy Spirit is the the "internal Source of eternal life" for the believer, keeping a Christian attached the thee "source of eternal life," Jesus Christ.[13] Thus, because 8:12 is a commentary on 7:37-39, Akin seems to associate the Holy Spirit's gift of living water in 7:37-39 with the “light of life” in 8:12, and therefore the image of light is associated with the eternal life given by Jesus.
____________________________
[1]Akin, 1 John, 69. As a reminder, Akin differentiates between “eternal life” and regular life. In some instances (e.g. John 1:4 and 1 John 1:5) the term “light” signifies regular life or God as the source of regular life; however, Akin seems to believe this is the exception, not the rule.
[2]Ibid., 69-70.
[3]Ibid., 69.
[4]Ibid., 69-70.
[5]Ibid., 70.
[6]Ibid., 70.
[7]Ibid., 70.
[8]Ibid., 70.
[9]Ibid., 67-69, note 98.
[10]Ibid., 67-68.
[11]Ibid., 68.
[12]Ibid., 68.
[13]Ibid., 68.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
1 John 1:5: "God is light" (Part 2)
[Additional, skipable note: From now on, I'm going to use the automatic, htm-conversion way of footnoting for my blog posts. It takes way too long to put in the html code for each footnote in order to make fancy, Microsoft-Word-like footnotes. See my first blog post to see what I mean. I had to copy and paste a code with all of this fancy, technical computer language in order to do that. This way now, all I have to do is save the Word document as an htm document and then paste to to the blogging site. It saves loads of time, even if the aesthetic value of the post is lessened. Ok, that is all.]
1 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."
Introduction:
The section I am discussing in this post has to what it means to call God “light.” At least in my understanding, I always thought that this simply meant that God is holy and righteous (which he is). The metaphors of light and darkness are often used to signify righteousness and unrighteousness both in Scripture and outside of Scripture. Outside of Scripture, the Essene community at Qumran (where we get the famous and valuable Dead Sea Scrolls) often used the metaphors of light and darkness to describe the righteous and unrighteous (“children of light” vs. the “children of darkness”). Even today, we use light and dark as metaphors for good and evil. One only has to watch the Star Wars movies to see what I mean. Nonetheless, it is the thesis of this discussion that in 1 John, “light” primarily signifies one that provides eternal life or eternal life itself. Thus, to say that God is light is to say that God is the source of eternal life.
This discussion will explicate several arguments in favor of this view, but other information is needed as well. So, this discussion will follow the following outline: first, this discussion will give an overview of Daniel Akin’s commentary on this verse and the metaphor of “light” in John and 1 John (as John and 1 John are closely connected, they probably share the same author). The purpose of this is to see what a scholar thinks and to see the reasoning behind his thoughts. If one is going to give a learned opinion on a particular issue, then one must interact with what other specialists have said on the issue. Third, this discussion will give a lengthy overview of the many significations of “light” in the Old Testament. Fourth, this discussion will use the information gained in the second step to help determine the proper signification of the word “light” in almost every single verse in John and 1 John. Finally, this discussion will give a concluding statement in regards to whether Akin is correct, and if he is incorrect in some ways, it will explain why he is incorrect.
Now, before this verse is analyzed, some background information is necessary. The author of the Gospel of John is also the author of 1 John as well. If one switches back and forth between the two books, then this becomes clear; the syntax, style, and content are closely related. Now, the Johannine corpus (John, 1-3 John, Revelation) was probably written sometime between 80-100 CE. While church tradition maintains that the apostle John wrote these books, many scholars, both conservative and liberal, disagree on that point.[1] Pertaining to 1 John in particular, the author wrote this letter (or sermon) for the purpose of refuting a heretical sect within the Johannine community. This sect came to believe that, as God, Jesus did not have human flesh; his “flesh” was a mere appearance. Christians named this Docetism—a Christological heresy. So, John wrote to heal the church schism and refute the heresy. One way he does this is by giving a threefold test in order to determine who is a true child of God: one must (1) believe Jesus came in the flesh, real flesh; (2) love one’s brother; and (3) obey the commandments of God, living the moral life.
Overview of Akin’s view:
Daniel Akin is one author that believes the metaphor of light is connected with life, not righteousness/goodness, as we shall see. Akin asks a good question on why John (in John 1:4, which is connected to 1 John) uses the word “light,” especially if he could have used the word "life" if John really meant life and not righteousness. It becomes even a better question once one realizes John uses the word "life" in the same verse. If he means the same thing by using "light," why not use the word "life" again? Akin asks, “Why did he not simply say, ‘That life [Jesus, the Word] was the life [instead of light] of human beings?’"[2] Akin argues that to say that Jesus possesses “life” is to say that Jesus’ life is self-existing.[3] So, why not just call “the life” (Jesus) the “life of humankind" (the life of humans), as opposed to “the light of humankind”? Akin argues that John brought in the metaphor of “light” in order to differentiate the self-existing life of the Word from the “derived,” creaturely life of mankind; in other words, the second part of the verse (“the life was the light [life] of humankind”) can be potentially read as “the light [life] of humankind was the life,” because it is an “interchangeable proposition” in Greek (meaning the subject and predicate can be flip-flopped).[4] If Akin is correct, one could interpret it in a troubling way. The hypothetical clause “the life of humankind was the life [The Word]” could be interpreted as John saying that human lives are divine.[5] Thus, John used the metaphor of “light” to make sure there was not any confusion. The metaphor of "light," then, is developed from John 1:4, and it is always associated with life, as this discussion will show (but maybe not in the exact same way each time, although used similarly each time).
Back to 1 John 1:5: Akin is of the view that to say God “light,” or “the light,” and to say that he has no “darkness” in him is to say essentially that God is the "source" of all life and there is “no lack of life” in him, or in other words, God possess the “fullness of life.”[6] Akin seems to provide two lines of evidence for his point. First, he connects John’s prologue (the same author as 1 John) with the creation account in Genesis, noting that Genesis 1 and John 1 parallel each other in that both involve “light” giving life to others; thus, “the light” referenced in John is one and the same life giving light in the creation story in Genesis.[7] Second, although only in a footnote (footnote 80), he references several Old Testament verses that portray the imagery of light as a life giving source, especially noting the explicit connection in Psalm 36:9, which reads: “For with You is life’s fountain. In Your light we will see light” (HCSB).[8] It should be noted that the Gospel of John calls Jesus “the light” and 1 Johns describes God, not Jesus, as being “light” (anarthrous noun), but as Akin notes, “Since the Word was with God in the beginning (John 1:1), and shares the same essence with God (John 1:2) . . . The Word’s [Jesus’] self-existing life is, in turn, the light (i.e. the source of life) of human beings.”[9] Meaning, it is appropriate to describe both the Father and Jesus as both possessing the quality of being the source of life.
Akin also differentiates between John’s usages of “light” and “true light.” He argues that John uses “true light” to indicate that Jesus is the source of eternal life as opposed to the source of regular, “anticipatory,” and “provisional” life.[10] So, according to Akin, it seems that in John 1:4, to say that God is the “light” (as opposed to “true light”) is to say that he is the source of life (not eternal life, however).
What are your thoughts, so far, on Akin's view? Agree? Disagree? Why? Share your thoughts and observations. The rest of of Akin's view will be presented in part 3.
___________________________________________
[1]See, for example: Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006).
[2]Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John , Vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 64.
[3]Ibid.
[4]Ibid., 65, note 78.
[5]Ibid., 65, note 78.
[6]Ibid., 69.
[7]Ibid., 65.
[8]Ibid., 64, note 80. Also, unless otherwise noted, all Bible references are from the NET version of the Bible.
[9]Ibid., 65.
[10]Ibid., 64, 65-66.
1 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."
Introduction:
The section I am discussing in this post has to what it means to call God “light.” At least in my understanding, I always thought that this simply meant that God is holy and righteous (which he is). The metaphors of light and darkness are often used to signify righteousness and unrighteousness both in Scripture and outside of Scripture. Outside of Scripture, the Essene community at Qumran (where we get the famous and valuable Dead Sea Scrolls) often used the metaphors of light and darkness to describe the righteous and unrighteous (“children of light” vs. the “children of darkness”). Even today, we use light and dark as metaphors for good and evil. One only has to watch the Star Wars movies to see what I mean. Nonetheless, it is the thesis of this discussion that in 1 John, “light” primarily signifies one that provides eternal life or eternal life itself. Thus, to say that God is light is to say that God is the source of eternal life.
This discussion will explicate several arguments in favor of this view, but other information is needed as well. So, this discussion will follow the following outline: first, this discussion will give an overview of Daniel Akin’s commentary on this verse and the metaphor of “light” in John and 1 John (as John and 1 John are closely connected, they probably share the same author). The purpose of this is to see what a scholar thinks and to see the reasoning behind his thoughts. If one is going to give a learned opinion on a particular issue, then one must interact with what other specialists have said on the issue. Third, this discussion will give a lengthy overview of the many significations of “light” in the Old Testament. Fourth, this discussion will use the information gained in the second step to help determine the proper signification of the word “light” in almost every single verse in John and 1 John. Finally, this discussion will give a concluding statement in regards to whether Akin is correct, and if he is incorrect in some ways, it will explain why he is incorrect.
Now, before this verse is analyzed, some background information is necessary. The author of the Gospel of John is also the author of 1 John as well. If one switches back and forth between the two books, then this becomes clear; the syntax, style, and content are closely related. Now, the Johannine corpus (John, 1-3 John, Revelation) was probably written sometime between 80-100 CE. While church tradition maintains that the apostle John wrote these books, many scholars, both conservative and liberal, disagree on that point.[1] Pertaining to 1 John in particular, the author wrote this letter (or sermon) for the purpose of refuting a heretical sect within the Johannine community. This sect came to believe that, as God, Jesus did not have human flesh; his “flesh” was a mere appearance. Christians named this Docetism—a Christological heresy. So, John wrote to heal the church schism and refute the heresy. One way he does this is by giving a threefold test in order to determine who is a true child of God: one must (1) believe Jesus came in the flesh, real flesh; (2) love one’s brother; and (3) obey the commandments of God, living the moral life.
Overview of Akin’s view:
Daniel Akin is one author that believes the metaphor of light is connected with life, not righteousness/goodness, as we shall see. Akin asks a good question on why John (in John 1:4, which is connected to 1 John) uses the word “light,” especially if he could have used the word "life" if John really meant life and not righteousness. It becomes even a better question once one realizes John uses the word "life" in the same verse. If he means the same thing by using "light," why not use the word "life" again? Akin asks, “Why did he not simply say, ‘That life [Jesus, the Word] was the life [instead of light] of human beings?’"[2] Akin argues that to say that Jesus possesses “life” is to say that Jesus’ life is self-existing.[3] So, why not just call “the life” (Jesus) the “life of humankind" (the life of humans), as opposed to “the light of humankind”? Akin argues that John brought in the metaphor of “light” in order to differentiate the self-existing life of the Word from the “derived,” creaturely life of mankind; in other words, the second part of the verse (“the life was the light [life] of humankind”) can be potentially read as “the light [life] of humankind was the life,” because it is an “interchangeable proposition” in Greek (meaning the subject and predicate can be flip-flopped).[4] If Akin is correct, one could interpret it in a troubling way. The hypothetical clause “the life of humankind was the life [The Word]” could be interpreted as John saying that human lives are divine.[5] Thus, John used the metaphor of “light” to make sure there was not any confusion. The metaphor of "light," then, is developed from John 1:4, and it is always associated with life, as this discussion will show (but maybe not in the exact same way each time, although used similarly each time).
Back to 1 John 1:5: Akin is of the view that to say God “light,” or “the light,” and to say that he has no “darkness” in him is to say essentially that God is the "source" of all life and there is “no lack of life” in him, or in other words, God possess the “fullness of life.”[6] Akin seems to provide two lines of evidence for his point. First, he connects John’s prologue (the same author as 1 John) with the creation account in Genesis, noting that Genesis 1 and John 1 parallel each other in that both involve “light” giving life to others; thus, “the light” referenced in John is one and the same life giving light in the creation story in Genesis.[7] Second, although only in a footnote (footnote 80), he references several Old Testament verses that portray the imagery of light as a life giving source, especially noting the explicit connection in Psalm 36:9, which reads: “For with You is life’s fountain. In Your light we will see light” (HCSB).[8] It should be noted that the Gospel of John calls Jesus “the light” and 1 Johns describes God, not Jesus, as being “light” (anarthrous noun), but as Akin notes, “Since the Word was with God in the beginning (John 1:1), and shares the same essence with God (John 1:2) . . . The Word’s [Jesus’] self-existing life is, in turn, the light (i.e. the source of life) of human beings.”[9] Meaning, it is appropriate to describe both the Father and Jesus as both possessing the quality of being the source of life.
Akin also differentiates between John’s usages of “light” and “true light.” He argues that John uses “true light” to indicate that Jesus is the source of eternal life as opposed to the source of regular, “anticipatory,” and “provisional” life.[10] So, according to Akin, it seems that in John 1:4, to say that God is the “light” (as opposed to “true light”) is to say that he is the source of life (not eternal life, however).
What are your thoughts, so far, on Akin's view? Agree? Disagree? Why? Share your thoughts and observations. The rest of of Akin's view will be presented in part 3.
___________________________________________
[1]See, for example: Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006).
[2]Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John , Vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 64.
[3]Ibid.
[4]Ibid., 65, note 78.
[5]Ibid., 65, note 78.
[6]Ibid., 69.
[7]Ibid., 65.
[8]Ibid., 64, note 80. Also, unless otherwise noted, all Bible references are from the NET version of the Bible.
[9]Ibid., 65.
[10]Ibid., 64, 65-66.
Friday, March 11, 2016
1 John 1:5 (Part 1)
Ok, ladies and gentlemen, I finally decided to start blogging. Some of you may remember (well, at least I remember) that I started this blog about a year ago. I posted something about it on Facebook and said that I would start blogging. Well, things changed and it never quite took off as I had originally planned. Now, with some more time on my hands (finally graduated from school), I have time to get this thing rolling. I won’t bore you here with the details of what this blog is all about (see About Me), so let’s get started.
1 John 1:5 (Part 1):
Over the next several weeks, I am going to post some thoughts about 1 John 1:5, specifically the statement that "God is light." In this first post, I want to simply give some thoughts on English translations of the Bible, the Greek text of 1:5, and the content of 1:5 in the concluding thoughts.
The Greek Stuff:
1 John 1:5: “[1] Καὶ ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ ἀγγελία [2] ἣν ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ [3] καὶ ἀναγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν, [4] ὅτι ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν [5] καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία.”
This Greek discussion will take place in five parts, following the division of the verse above. The translation of each Greek word will be put in brackets next to that word:
But first, carefully note the literal English translation of this verse: “[1] And he/she/it is this the message [2] which we have heard from him [3] and we announce to you, [4] that the God light he/she/it is [5] and darkness in him not he/she/it is none.”
This is an unintelligible English sentence, if that is even an appropriate description. So, first lesson in Greek: do not buy into those that say an English translation has to be a literal translation of the Greek. That is impossible. Translators, thankfully, do not buy into this either. However, translators do have disagreements on translating Greek into English. English Bibles usually range from mostly formal (literal) to mostly functional (conceptual) translations (the more literal NASB to the functional NLT). However, even the more formal translations use some functionality because a literal translation is impossible. A translation that is highly formal (more “word-for-word” translation) attempts to stick to the original structure and meaning of the Greek as much as possible, and, meanwhile, a functional translation (“thought-for-thought”) attempts to translate the Greek with contemporary English in such a way that the English impacts the audience in the same way that the original Greek version would have impacted the original audience of the Bible.1
In essence, the functional approach tries to minimize as much as possible any confusion that might result in reading an ancient document that contains idioms, words, and sentence structure that are foreign to contemporary audiences. This is good. These translations pull of a double translation, however, in some instances. They do not merely give the closest approximate English word for a Greek word, for example, but go further and translate the concept that the Greek word probably captures. The negative of this approach is that the translator inevitably brings his or her theological views into the translation, since many good theologians disagree on what concept a given Greek word might signify (e.g. the righteousness of God). Granted, all translations do this to a certain degree (e.g. “propitiation” in Romans), but it seems one should allow the reader to think through and wrestle with the original text as much as English allows. A translators view on a theological issue should not be confused with the text itself; this can occur with highly functional methods.
But the more formal translations do this anyways, as translators of the formal school must make decisions on the English structure that best matches the Greek structure, without following it exactly, and this can become interesting because multiple translation options are often available for the translator. The same applies for the meaning of the words, which often have multiple possible translation options. Just one example now (of word meaning): Does the Greek pistis Christou mean faith of Christ or faith in Christ (a very complicated and impactful debate)? Whatever translation one decides on, in the opinion of this theology student, translations from both schools of thought are important and should be used. One should read both the NLT (and Eugene Peterson’s The Message) alongside of the ESV and the NASB (or pick whatever translation that works).
Now, this discussion will get into some of the Greek.
“[1] Καὶ [and] ἔστιν [he/she/it is] αὕτη [this] ἡ [the] ἀγγελία [message]”: There are two possible translations of part one: either (a) “And this is the message” or (b) “And this message is.” The demonstrative pronoun αὕτη (this) could be taken as an adjectival pronoun, modifying ἡ ἀγγελία (“this message”). A demonstrative pronoun functions adjectivally when it is the predicate position with a noun; and a pronoun is in the predicate position in Greek when the pronoun agree with the noun in gender, number, and case, and the pronoun lacks the article, but the noun does not. Thus, it is translated as, “And this message is.” However, the pronoun could also be translated as a simple substantival pronoun (meaning a regular pronoun) and therefore read, “And this is the message.” Either way, the meaning does not change too much. However, the translation “this message is” makes the “message” seem as though it was previously presented in the letter, but the translation “this is the message ” presents the “message” as though it is about to be explicated. Since John explicates the message in the rest of the letter, translation (a) is the best way to translate part 1. Either way, this is an example of the trouble of translating the structure of the Greek into English. One knows what the Greek pronoun here means in English, but there is a decision to make as to how it functions syntactically (structure issue).
“[2] ἣν [which/what] ἀκηκόαμεν [we have heard] ἀπʼ [from] αὐτοῦ [him]”: Part two modifies the first part. The “message” is one “which we have heard from him.” The Greek word ἀγγελία (angelia) occurs two times in the New Testament only. It is not clear from the word alone, then, that the message is the gospel message, but it is clear that this is the case because (a) the message was received from him, Jesus, and (b) this meaning best fits with John’s purpose in writing this message: to assure his readers that they have eternal life. The gospel is the message that gives assurance of salvation. The rest of part two is simple. ἣν (hen) is a relative pronoun, probably best translated as “which.” ἀκηκόαμεν (akekoamen) is a perfect active indicate first person plural verb. The perfect tense communicates something done in the past with continuing effects in the present. ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ (ap autou) is a prepositional phrase that means “from him.” This is pretty straightforward. It should be noted that if part 1 above were translated with option b, then the relative pronoun would probably be translated as “what.” The complete translation, then, of (1) and (2) would be the following: “[1] And this message is [2] what we have heard from him.”
“[3] καὶ [and] ἀναγγέλλομεν [we announce] ὑμῖν [to you]”: This is also simple to translate. The message is one that John is announcing to his readers in the present. The verb ἀναγγέλλομεν (anangellomen) is a present tense verb. Now, it should be mentioned that Greek verbs do not primarily communicate tense as in English. They communicate aspect. This is tough to explain, so that will be deferred until another post, but the present tense communicates the imperfective aspect, which means it tells the reader that the action is an ongoing action. Moving along, the Greek word for “to you” (humin) is a second person plural pronoun in the dative case, which is why it is translated with a “to.” A dative typically functions as the indirect object of a sentence.
“[4] ὅτι [that] ὁ [the] θεὸς [God] φῶς [light] ἐστιν [he/she/it is]”: A ὅτι (hoti) clause introduces a dependent clause, and this particular one modifies the previous main clause, telling the reader the content of the “message.” Here, John uses a predicate nominative construction. A predicate nominative is a syntactical construction in which a nominative noun (a nount that typically functions as a subject) is predicated of another nominative noun using a “to be” verb; ἐστιν (estin) is that “to be” verb. The article, ὁ (ho), identifies the subject of the predicate nominative; it acts as a grammatical marker. The Greek article has many functions, so it is not always translated into English using the English definite article (“the”). So, here is yet another example of why one should not translate Greek literally. John is not trying to say “the God,” but simply “God.” Anyways, the predicate nominative often is used to describe a quality of the subject. This is what is happening here. God possesses the quality of “light.”
“[5] καὶ [and] σκοτία [darkness] ἐν [in] αὐτῷ [him] οὐκ [not] ἔστιν [he/she/it is] οὐδεμία [none]”: The final part of this verse indicates that God has no darkness. It reads, “And darkness is not in him at all.” The Greek word οὐδεμία (oudemia) acts as a double negative, but a double negative in Greek emphasizes the first negative. It does not cancel out the first negative, as in English, but strengthens the negative. Thus, John is emphatically saying that God does not have any darkness in him. This is why it is best to translate the second negative with “at all.” It makes that emphasis explicit, and it makes more sense than saying “none” at the end (“and darkness is not in him none”).
Concluding thoughts:
First, as already alluded to above, there is not a single perfect English translation. The KJV and ESV (Elect Standard Version anybody?) are not thee translations to read. They all make some theological judgment calls in the process of translation in order to communicate to the reader in modern English. And they all make decisions to translate some word or sentence in this way as opposed to that way. In fact, please, read multiple translations. It will benefit one's Bible study.
Now, about the text: The writer of 1 John is coming out as a eyewitness of Jesus (as well as the rest of the "we"). He heard the message from Jesus himself, and now he is passing on the message to his community. Many scholars believe that 1 John is a clarification of the Gospel of John. The community that received that Gospel is in the midst of a schism because of it, and the author of John and 1 John is clearing up any misconceptions about his Gospel. Therefore, the author of John is also a direct eyewitness account of the life of Jesus. Anyway, the author says that the message he received is that "God is light." So, what does it mean to call God "light"? That will be the topic of the next post and some posts after that. This student believes that it does not mean what one might think, that God is righteous and not evil. The good news of the gospel is not that God is righteous and not evil (although he is that as well). Stay tuned . . .
_______________________________
1. J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God's Word: A Hands-On Appraoch to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 34-35.↩
1 John 1:5 (Part 1):
Over the next several weeks, I am going to post some thoughts about 1 John 1:5, specifically the statement that "God is light." In this first post, I want to simply give some thoughts on English translations of the Bible, the Greek text of 1:5, and the content of 1:5 in the concluding thoughts.
The Greek Stuff:
1 John 1:5: “[1] Καὶ ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ ἀγγελία [2] ἣν ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ [3] καὶ ἀναγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν, [4] ὅτι ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν [5] καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία.”
This Greek discussion will take place in five parts, following the division of the verse above. The translation of each Greek word will be put in brackets next to that word:
But first, carefully note the literal English translation of this verse: “[1] And he/she/it is this the message [2] which we have heard from him [3] and we announce to you, [4] that the God light he/she/it is [5] and darkness in him not he/she/it is none.”
This is an unintelligible English sentence, if that is even an appropriate description. So, first lesson in Greek: do not buy into those that say an English translation has to be a literal translation of the Greek. That is impossible. Translators, thankfully, do not buy into this either. However, translators do have disagreements on translating Greek into English. English Bibles usually range from mostly formal (literal) to mostly functional (conceptual) translations (the more literal NASB to the functional NLT). However, even the more formal translations use some functionality because a literal translation is impossible. A translation that is highly formal (more “word-for-word” translation) attempts to stick to the original structure and meaning of the Greek as much as possible, and, meanwhile, a functional translation (“thought-for-thought”) attempts to translate the Greek with contemporary English in such a way that the English impacts the audience in the same way that the original Greek version would have impacted the original audience of the Bible.1
In essence, the functional approach tries to minimize as much as possible any confusion that might result in reading an ancient document that contains idioms, words, and sentence structure that are foreign to contemporary audiences. This is good. These translations pull of a double translation, however, in some instances. They do not merely give the closest approximate English word for a Greek word, for example, but go further and translate the concept that the Greek word probably captures. The negative of this approach is that the translator inevitably brings his or her theological views into the translation, since many good theologians disagree on what concept a given Greek word might signify (e.g. the righteousness of God). Granted, all translations do this to a certain degree (e.g. “propitiation” in Romans), but it seems one should allow the reader to think through and wrestle with the original text as much as English allows. A translators view on a theological issue should not be confused with the text itself; this can occur with highly functional methods.
But the more formal translations do this anyways, as translators of the formal school must make decisions on the English structure that best matches the Greek structure, without following it exactly, and this can become interesting because multiple translation options are often available for the translator. The same applies for the meaning of the words, which often have multiple possible translation options. Just one example now (of word meaning): Does the Greek pistis Christou mean faith of Christ or faith in Christ (a very complicated and impactful debate)? Whatever translation one decides on, in the opinion of this theology student, translations from both schools of thought are important and should be used. One should read both the NLT (and Eugene Peterson’s The Message) alongside of the ESV and the NASB (or pick whatever translation that works).
Now, this discussion will get into some of the Greek.
“[1] Καὶ [and] ἔστιν [he/she/it is] αὕτη [this] ἡ [the] ἀγγελία [message]”: There are two possible translations of part one: either (a) “And this is the message” or (b) “And this message is.” The demonstrative pronoun αὕτη (this) could be taken as an adjectival pronoun, modifying ἡ ἀγγελία (“this message”). A demonstrative pronoun functions adjectivally when it is the predicate position with a noun; and a pronoun is in the predicate position in Greek when the pronoun agree with the noun in gender, number, and case, and the pronoun lacks the article, but the noun does not. Thus, it is translated as, “And this message is.” However, the pronoun could also be translated as a simple substantival pronoun (meaning a regular pronoun) and therefore read, “And this is the message.” Either way, the meaning does not change too much. However, the translation “this message is” makes the “message” seem as though it was previously presented in the letter, but the translation “this is the message ” presents the “message” as though it is about to be explicated. Since John explicates the message in the rest of the letter, translation (a) is the best way to translate part 1. Either way, this is an example of the trouble of translating the structure of the Greek into English. One knows what the Greek pronoun here means in English, but there is a decision to make as to how it functions syntactically (structure issue).
“[2] ἣν [which/what] ἀκηκόαμεν [we have heard] ἀπʼ [from] αὐτοῦ [him]”: Part two modifies the first part. The “message” is one “which we have heard from him.” The Greek word ἀγγελία (angelia) occurs two times in the New Testament only. It is not clear from the word alone, then, that the message is the gospel message, but it is clear that this is the case because (a) the message was received from him, Jesus, and (b) this meaning best fits with John’s purpose in writing this message: to assure his readers that they have eternal life. The gospel is the message that gives assurance of salvation. The rest of part two is simple. ἣν (hen) is a relative pronoun, probably best translated as “which.” ἀκηκόαμεν (akekoamen) is a perfect active indicate first person plural verb. The perfect tense communicates something done in the past with continuing effects in the present. ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ (ap autou) is a prepositional phrase that means “from him.” This is pretty straightforward. It should be noted that if part 1 above were translated with option b, then the relative pronoun would probably be translated as “what.” The complete translation, then, of (1) and (2) would be the following: “[1] And this message is [2] what we have heard from him.”
“[3] καὶ [and] ἀναγγέλλομεν [we announce] ὑμῖν [to you]”: This is also simple to translate. The message is one that John is announcing to his readers in the present. The verb ἀναγγέλλομεν (anangellomen) is a present tense verb. Now, it should be mentioned that Greek verbs do not primarily communicate tense as in English. They communicate aspect. This is tough to explain, so that will be deferred until another post, but the present tense communicates the imperfective aspect, which means it tells the reader that the action is an ongoing action. Moving along, the Greek word for “to you” (humin) is a second person plural pronoun in the dative case, which is why it is translated with a “to.” A dative typically functions as the indirect object of a sentence.
“[4] ὅτι [that] ὁ [the] θεὸς [God] φῶς [light] ἐστιν [he/she/it is]”: A ὅτι (hoti) clause introduces a dependent clause, and this particular one modifies the previous main clause, telling the reader the content of the “message.” Here, John uses a predicate nominative construction. A predicate nominative is a syntactical construction in which a nominative noun (a nount that typically functions as a subject) is predicated of another nominative noun using a “to be” verb; ἐστιν (estin) is that “to be” verb. The article, ὁ (ho), identifies the subject of the predicate nominative; it acts as a grammatical marker. The Greek article has many functions, so it is not always translated into English using the English definite article (“the”). So, here is yet another example of why one should not translate Greek literally. John is not trying to say “the God,” but simply “God.” Anyways, the predicate nominative often is used to describe a quality of the subject. This is what is happening here. God possesses the quality of “light.”
“[5] καὶ [and] σκοτία [darkness] ἐν [in] αὐτῷ [him] οὐκ [not] ἔστιν [he/she/it is] οὐδεμία [none]”: The final part of this verse indicates that God has no darkness. It reads, “And darkness is not in him at all.” The Greek word οὐδεμία (oudemia) acts as a double negative, but a double negative in Greek emphasizes the first negative. It does not cancel out the first negative, as in English, but strengthens the negative. Thus, John is emphatically saying that God does not have any darkness in him. This is why it is best to translate the second negative with “at all.” It makes that emphasis explicit, and it makes more sense than saying “none” at the end (“and darkness is not in him none”).
Concluding thoughts:
First, as already alluded to above, there is not a single perfect English translation. The KJV and ESV (Elect Standard Version anybody?) are not thee translations to read. They all make some theological judgment calls in the process of translation in order to communicate to the reader in modern English. And they all make decisions to translate some word or sentence in this way as opposed to that way. In fact, please, read multiple translations. It will benefit one's Bible study.
Now, about the text: The writer of 1 John is coming out as a eyewitness of Jesus (as well as the rest of the "we"). He heard the message from Jesus himself, and now he is passing on the message to his community. Many scholars believe that 1 John is a clarification of the Gospel of John. The community that received that Gospel is in the midst of a schism because of it, and the author of John and 1 John is clearing up any misconceptions about his Gospel. Therefore, the author of John is also a direct eyewitness account of the life of Jesus. Anyway, the author says that the message he received is that "God is light." So, what does it mean to call God "light"? That will be the topic of the next post and some posts after that. This student believes that it does not mean what one might think, that God is righteous and not evil. The good news of the gospel is not that God is righteous and not evil (although he is that as well). Stay tuned . . .
_______________________________
1. J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God's Word: A Hands-On Appraoch to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 34-35.↩
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)