[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.
No comments:
Post a Comment