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.”