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

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

PART 6: 1 JOHN 1:5: “GOD IS LIGHT”:


John and 1 John and the Old Testament on Light:

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

Eternal life in John and 1 John:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Genesis 1 and John’s Prologue:

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

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

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

Assessment and Conclusion:

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

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

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.

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 (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.↩}