Tag: Light

May 29: 1 John 2:8-11

 1 John 2:8-11

The contrastive light-darkness theme in 1:5-2:2 is further developed in the next subsection (2:3-11). Again, the principal point of the contrast is to demonstrate the difference between true and false believers. Two points are made about the false believers in 1:5-2:2:

    • They claim to have union (lit. common-bond, koinwni/a) with God, and yet “walk about” in the darkness (of the world), rather than the light of God (1:6-7)
    • They claim to be without sin, failing to acknowledge the existence/reality of their sin, without which it cannot be removed/cleansed by the spiritual power of Jesus’ sacrificial death (i.e., his “blood”) (1:8-2:2)

In all probability, the author is aiming these comments specifically at the opponents he mentions in the “antichrist” passages of 2:18-27; 4:1-6. As discussed in the previous note, the ethical-religious orientation of the idiom of “walking about” (vb peripate/w) refers primarily to the great dual-commandment in 3:23-24. That is to say, whether one “walks about” in light or in darkness depends on whether one is obedient to the two-fold duty (e)ntolh/) that is placed upon believers. Here in 2:3-11 it becomes clear that this, indeed, is the author’s focus and point of reference.

As he states in verse 3, the true believer is one who keeps the e)ntolai/:

“And in this we know that we have known Him: if we keep/guard [vb thre/w] His e)ntolai.”

The noun e)ntolh/ is usually translated “command(ment)”, but more properly refers to a duty that is placed upon a person to complete. In the Johannine Gospel it refers specifically to the duty/mission which God the Father gave the Son (Jesus) to complete on earth (10:18; 12:49-50; 14:31; cf. 19:30). However, in the Last Discourse, the focus shifts to the duty which falls upon the disciples (believers), according to the instruction which the Son, in turn, gives to them (13:34; 14:15, 21; 15:10-12, 14, 17); principally, this refers to the duty to love one another, following the example of Jesus’ sacrificial love.

This Johannine usage informs completely the use of e)ntolh/ in 1 John, the only real difference being that there is an expanded emphasis that encompasses both components of the great dual-e)ntolh/ (as defined in 3:23-24): (a) trust in Jesus as the Son of God (according to the truth), and (b) love for one another, according to Jesus’ own example. In the Johannine writings, the noun can be used in the singular (e)ntolh/) or plural (e)ntolai/), interchangeably, with no apparent difference in meaning. This is, perhaps, best explained by the fact that the great two-fold duty (of trust and love) can be viewed as either one command or as two.

The similarity of expression between verse 4 and the earlier declarations in 1:6 and 8 would seem to make clear that, for the author of 1 John, sin (= “walking in darkness”) is defined principally in terms of violating the great dual-e)ntolh/:

“The (one) saying that ‘I have known Him,’ and (yet) not keeping His e)ntolai/, is a liar [yeu/sth$], and the truth is not in him”

In other words, the one who does not fulfill the great two-fold duty (3:23-24), required of every believer, is not a true believer. Such a person, indeed, sins most egregiously, even if they would think themselves otherwise to be without sin (1:8-2:2). This is an understanding of sin (a(marti/a [vb a(marta/nw]) that is quite different from how the world typically understands it (cf. the earlier note on Jn 16:9).

True believers complete the duty (to love), demonstrating that they are truly united with God, and so God’s own love is completed [tetelei/wtai] in them (v. 5). And, in so doing, the believer is following (“walking about” according to) Jesus’ own example (v. 6; Jn 13:34; 15:12ff). The author makes clear that this duty is nothing new, but corresponds to what believers have held (as their duty) from the beginning (v. 7).

The use of the expression a)p’ a)rxh=$ (“from [the] beginning”), along with the noun lo/go$ (“word”), is a direct echo of the prologue (1:1). As I have previously discussed, there is a dual meaning to this wording. Primarily it is Christological, referring to Jesus as Son who was with God “in the beginning” (Jn 1:1ff); secondarily, it is evangelistic, referring to the message about Jesus, going back to the “beginning” —the time of first disciples and the earthly ministry of Jesus.

To say that true believers hold (vb e&xw) this lo/go$ “from the beginning” (a)p’ a)rxh=$) has a similar two-fold meaning: (1) they have the living Word abiding in them (through the Spirit), and (2) they receive and accept the historical Gospel Tradition about the Word, preserved and transmitted from the first disciples.

The only way that one can speak of this duty for believers as being “new” is in the eschatological context of the light-darkness contrast (v. 8). The mission of Jesus (the Son), culminating in his exaltation and return to the Father, marks the beginning of a New Age. This is a view held by virtually all first-century Christians. The coming of the Spirit is the fulfillment of the eschatological expectation, implementing a “new covenant” for God’s people (believers). The Johannine writings evince a particularly strong sense of ‘realized’ eschatology—meaning that, for believers, the future events of the end-time are realized in the present, through the Spirit. This sense is expressed here in verse 8:

“…the darkness has led (itself) along [i.e. has passed along], and the true light already shines”

Though the world remains under the dominion of darkness and evil, this is not so for believers, who already experience the reality of Jesus’ victory over the world (Jn 16:33).

The general ethical language of 1:6-7 is now made more precise, with the idiom of “walking about” in the darkness defined specifically in terms of a false believer who hates (vb mise/w) his “brother” (i.e., another believer):

“The (one) counting (himself) to be in the light, and (yet) hating his brother, is (actually) in the darkness until now.” (v. 9)

This clearly refers to a false believer (cf. the use of yeu/sth$ in v. 4), who considers him/herself to be “in the light” and yet is actually “in the darkness” (and has been so all this time “until now”). The author further explains that “hate” really means a lack of love, a failure to show love; this is the opposite of what characterizes the true believer:

“The (one) loving his brother remains [me/nei] in the light, and there is not (any thing) in him tripping (him up);” (v. 10)

As throughout the Johannine writings, the verb me/nw (“remain”) has special theological (and Christological) significance. It refers to the abiding presence of God the Father (and the Son) in the believer, and of the believer in the Father (and Son); this abiding union is spiritual, being realized through the presence of the Spirit. In contrast, there is no such abiding for the false believer; rather, he/she is simply lost in the darkness, wandering about blindly:

“but the (one) hating his brother is in the darkness, and walks about [peripatei=] in the darkness, and has not seen where he leads (himself), (in) that the darkness (has) blinded his eyes.” (v. 11)

The language and imagery in this verse echoes the words of Jesus in Jn 12:35 (cf. the discussion in the prior note). The motif of blindness is a natural extension of the Johannine sight/seeing theme, and also features prominently in the Gospel (chap. 9), drawing upon historical tradition(s) regarding Jesus’ healing miracles (cf. Mk 8:22-23; 10:46ff pars; Matt 11:5 par; 12:22; 15:30-31; Lk 4:18).

The false believer is thus one who fails to show proper love to other believers; in this way, he/she may be said to “hate” them. This way of framing the matter is crucial to the author’s rhetorical purpose and strategy, especially when he comes to deal with the ‘opponents,’ and the crisis (within the Community) which he feels compelled to address. However, it is noteworthy that, here in the opening section (1:5-2:17), he couches his introduction to the crisis within a more general ethical-religious instruction. In the next daily note, I will explore this aspect a bit further, looking at his instruction to believers, regarding the world (o( ko/smo$), vv. 15-17.

 

May 26: 1 John 1:5-7 (continued)

1 John 1:5-7, continued

In the previous note, the Gospel parallels to vv. 5-7 were noted—particularly the statements by Jesus in 8:12; 11:9-10 and 12:35, all of which utilize the same verb peripate/w (“walk about”) in the context of the same light-darkness contrast:

“I am the light of the world; the (one) following me shall not walk about [peripath/sh|] in the darkness, but shall hold the light of life.” (8:12)

“if one should walk about [peripath=|] in the day, he will not strike (his foot) against (a stone), (in) that [i.e. because] he sees (by) the light of this world; but if one should walk about [peripath=|] in the night, he does strike (his foot) against (a stone), (in) that [i.e. because] the light is not in [i.e. with] him.” (11:9-10)

“(For) yet a little time the light is in [i.e. with] you. You must walk about [peripatei=te] as you hold the light, (so) that darkness should not take you down; (for) indeed the (one) walking about [peripatw=n] in the darkness has not seen [i.e. does not know] where he leads (himself).” (12:35)

In many ways, Jesus’ saying in 8:12 is closest to vv. 5-7, particularly in regard to:

    • The essential predication of light as a Divine characteristic, identifying God the Father (and Christ the Son) with the Light:
      “God is [e)stin] light…” [v. 5]
      “I am [ei)mi] the light…” [8:12]
    • The use of the verb e&xw (“hold”), indicating what the true believer holds:
      —koinwni/a [“common-bond”], with God and with other believers [vv. 6-7]
      — “the light of life” (to\ fw=$ th=$ zwh=$) [8:12]
    • In the context of the prologue, we may note the formal parallel between the expression “the word [lo/go$] of life” (v. 1) and “the light [fw=$] of life” (8:12)

On the last point, I have previously discussed how, in a Johannine theological context, the noun koinwni/a and the expression “the word of life” both allude, however indirectly, to the presence of the Spirit. The same may be said of the expression “the light of life” in Jn 8:12. The Spirit is the basis of believers’ union with God (and with each other), and the Spirit is also the living (and life-giving) Word which the Son (Jesus) communicates to believers. Primarily, of course, the expressions “word of life” and “light of life” refer to the person of Jesus (the Son), but this person is ultimately present in and among believers through the Spirit. For more on this, cf. the recent articles and notes on the Paraclete-sayings in the  Last Discourse.

Turning briefly to the Gospel sayings in 11:9-10 and 12:35, the formal contrast between light and darkness is more focused, just as it is here in vv. 5-7. One may also note the specific wording of the light being in (e)n) believers, with the implied contrast, namely that the light is not in non-believers. On the surface, in Jesus’ illustrations, the preposition e)n would more naturally be translated “with” —since the basic image is of a person having a light at hand by which to walk. But I would take these as yet further instances of Johannine double-meaning in the discourse: viz., according to the deeper meaning of Jesus’ words, believers have the light in them, while it is absent in non-believers. Again, the abiding presence of this Divine Light is realized through the presence of the Spirit. To this point, there is little fundamental difference between Paul’s idea of believers walking about (same verb, peripate/w) “in the Spirit” (Gal 5:16; cf. Rom 6:4; 8:4) and the Johannine image of walking about “in the light”.

The final Gospel saying (in 12:35f), shares with 8:12 the idiom of “holding” (vb e&xw) the light. In the Johannine writings, this common verb repeatedly carries special theological significance, referring to the dynamic of believers holding (eternal) life within them, given to them by the Son (Jesus) through the Spirit—cf. 3:15-16, 36; 4:11, 32; 5:24, 26, 38-40; 6:40, 47, 53-54; 10:12; 14:21; 16:15, 33; 17:13; 20:31. In most of these references an association with the Spirit is either clearly indicated (by the context) or implied. Just as believers hold life, so they/we also hold all the attributes and characteristics of God—love, word, truth, etc.—indeed, believers hold God Himself (along with Jesus the Son) within themselves. The range of this thematic concept is expressed, repeatedly, by the use of the verb e&xw in 1 John: e.g., 2:1, 7, 20, 23; 3:3, 15; 4:16, 21; 5:10, 12-13; cf. also 2 John 9.

The statement in Jn 12:35 is punctuated by Jesus’ further declaration in v. 36a:

“As you hold the light, you must trust in the light, (so) that you may come to be sons of light.”

This introduces the familiar idea, in its distinctly Johannine form, of believers—those who trust in Jesus (“the light”)—being identified as children of God. In the common mode of expression, believers “come to be (born)” out of God, utilizing the verb of coming-to-be, genna/w. Here, the related verb of becoming, gi/nomai, is used, with little difference in meaning. The Johannine writings always use the neuter plural noun te/kna (“offspring,” i.e., children) in reference to believers, with the noun ui(o/$ (“son”), in the singular, reserved for Jesus. This is the only instance in the Johannine writings where believers are referred to as ui(oi/ (“sons”), cp. Rom 8:14-15ff; Gal 3:26; 4:5-6; cf. also Heb 2:10; Matt 5:9, 45; Lk 6:35; indeed, this is the only Johannine occurrence of ui(o/$ in the plural. The discrepancy is no doubt to be explained as the result of the Gospel writer inheriting (in established sayings of Jesus) a traditional expression (cf. Luke 16:8, and frequently in the Qumran texts, 1QS 1:9; 2:16; 3:13, 20-21, 24-25; 4:11; 1QM 1:1, 3, 9, 11, 13).

In any case, the wording in 12:36 is significant for the author’s thematic emphasis in 1 John, as he discusses the characteristics of true and false believers. The true believer manifests the light of God, while the false believer displays the darkness of the world which is opposed to God (and to His Son). As true believers “walk about in the light [e)n tw=| fwti/]” it is an indication that they are “in God” (in His light). The idiom itself is traditional, and likely alludes to Scripture passages such as Psalm 36:9; 56:13; 89:15, etc. The specific idea of God being “in light” may simply allude to the familiar imagery of the Divine Presence being surrounded by a luminous/shining aura of glory; or, possibly, a Scripture reference such as Psalm 104:2 may be in mind; of YHWH Himself as light, see esp. Isa 60:19-20. In terms of the Johannine theology, believers abide in God and God abides in them. God’s abiding presence is realized through the presence of His Son (“the true light,” 2:8), which, in turn, is realized through the Spirit. Thus, to say that believers are “in the light” implies that they/we are “in the Spirit” and are “in Christ” (to use the Pauline expression).

How does the author of 1 John understand what it means to “walk about” in light and in darkness, respectively? It seems clear, from the content of 1:5-2:17 as a whole, that he understands the verb peripate/w in much the same ethical-religious sense as Paul does, e.g., in Gal 5:16ff, with that memorable contrast between sinful “works of the flesh” and the holy “fruit of the Spirit”. However, the Johannine writings also have a very distinctive way of defining sin, and this informs the author’s use of the noun a(marti/a (and verb a(marta/nw) throughout. The difficulties surrounding this usage in 1:8-10, when compared with other passages in 1 John, continues to be much discussed and debated among commentators. What is most important, however, and what takes first position in the author’s line of argument, is the statement in verse 7b that

“…the blood of Yeshua His Son cleanses us from all sin.”

Whatever the precise relationship between the (true) believer and sin (a(marti/a), as understood by the author, believers are cleansed “from all sin” by the “blood” of Jesus—that is, as a result of his sacrificial death (cf. Jn 1:29). The cleansing power of Jesus’ “blood” is communicated to believers spiritually, through the presence of the Spirit; in an earlier note, I argued for this line of interpretation of 1:7, in light of certain passages in the Gospel—most notably, the ‘eucharistic’ portion of the Bread of Life Discourse (6:51-58, in relation to v. 63), and in the distinctive Johannine presentation of (traditional) details surrounding Jesus’ death (19:30, 34); cf. also the traditional idea of Jesus baptizing believers “in the Spirit” (1:33), with its obvious connotation of cleansing (from sin).

In the next daily note, I will explore in a bit more detail what the author says regarding sin in vv. 8-10ff.

May 25: 1 John 1:5-7

1 John 1:5-7

A key point of transition between the 1 John prologue (1:1-4) and the first major section of the work (1:5-2:17) is the noun koinwni/a, which I translate as “common-bond”, and which, as a keyword, reflects the ideal of unity among believers (cf. Acts 2:42). It is used at the close of the opening sentence (in verse 3, cf. the previous note), and occurs again in vv. 6-7. Even though the word does not occur in the Gospel of John, nor anywhere else in the Johannine writings, it may be said to express the underlying idea of unity—and of union—both among believers, and between believers and God, which is so important to the Johannine theology.

In the Gospel, these themes feature most prominently in the Last Discourse and the chapter 17 Prayer-Discourse, and, in this context, relate to the Paraclete-sayings; in other words, this unity/union is realized for believers through the presence of the Spirit. I have discussed the (indirect) allusions to the Spirit in the prologue, and will touch on them also here in vv. 5-7. The role of the Spirit is central to the author’s rhetorical approach in 1 John, being a reflection of a distinctive Johannine spiritualism.

The principal thematic emphasis of 1:5-2:17 is established at the beginning, in verse 5:

“And this is the message which we have heard from him, and (which) we give forth as a message to you: that God is light, and there is not (any) darkness in Him, not one (bit).”

The declaration in v. 5b is presented as a message given to his disciples by Jesus (“from him”). This is another element of continuity with the prologue, both in the emphasis on things Jesus said to his disciples (during his earthly ministry), and with the concept of preserving and transmitting that tradition to future believers, utilizing the verb a)nagge/llw (or its parallel, a)pagge/llw).

We do not have any actual saying by Jesus that corresponds to v. 5b; however, it certainly does reflect the teaching in the Gospel, combining two distinctive Johannine themes:

    • The identification of Jesus as the light (fw=$) of God, which shines in the darkness of the world—1:4-9; 3:19-21; 8:12; 9:5; 11:9-10; 12:35-36, 46; cp. 1 Jn 2:8ff.
    • The idea that Jesus (as the Son) reveals God (the Father) to the world (spec. to believers), including His fundamental characteristics and attributes; this theme is particularly prominent in the Last Discourse and Prayer-Discourse—14:7-11, 20-23; 15:8ff; 16:15, 25ff; 17:2ff, 7ff, 12-14ff, 22ff, 26.

The contrast between light and darkness (skoti/a) is an essential component of the Johannine dualism. It is also a most natural and obvious point of contrast, which can be found utilized in many different religious and philosophical systems. One does not need to look much further than the Old Testament and Jewish tradition to find numerous examples (e.g., Gen 1:4-5; Job 12:22; 29:3; 30:26; Psalm 18:28; 139:11-12; Isa 5:20; 9:2; 42:16; Amos 5:18ff). The light-darkness juxtaposition is as much a part of the dualism in the Qumran texts, as in the Johannine writings; cf. for example, the ‘Two Spirits’ treatise in the Community Rule text (1QS 3:13-4:26).

From the Johannine standpoint, light characterizes God, while darkness characterizes the world (o( ko/smo$); and these are entirely opposite and opposed to each other—in particular, the world is fundamentally opposed to God and His truth. This means that the world is also opposed to God’s Son (Jesus) and to all of His offspring (believers). There is nothing at all (ou)demi/a) of the darkness in God or in His children.

The author expounds this light-darkness message in vv. 6-7, giving to it a practical (and most pointed) emphasis:

“If we say that we hold common-bond [koinwni/a] with Him, and (yet) should walk about in the darkness, (then) we are false and do not do the truth;” (v. 6)

This is the first, negative side of the instruction, and refers to false believers (vb yeu/domai, “be false, act falsely”)—that is, those who say they hold common-bond with God (i.e., as true believers), but yet “walk about” in the darkness. This contrast almost certainly relates to the ‘opponents’ of whom the author speaks in the “antichrist” sections (2:18-27; 4:1-6). This contrast between true and false believers informs the entirety of 1 John as a treatise.

The positive side of the instruction, describing the true believer, comes in verse 7:

“but, if we should walk about in the light, as He is in the light, (then) we hold common-bond [koinwni/a] with each other, and the blood of Yeshua His Son cleanses us from all sin.”

False believers walk about in darkness, but true believers walk about in the light. This idiom of “walking about” (vb peripate/w) goes back to Old Testament tradition, with the use of the corresponding Hebrew verb El^h* (“walk, go”, esp. in the reflexive Hithpael stem), to describe a person’s habitual behavior (in an ethical-religious sense). Paul famously uses the verb in Galatians 5:16, where walking about “in the Spirit” is more or less equivalent with the Johannine walking “in the light”; cf. also Romans 6:4; 8:4. The Johannine idiom, using the same verb (in the same sense), is found in 8:12; 11:9-10 and 12:35, which are worth citing (in order):

“I am the light of the world; the (one) following me shall not walk about [peripath/sh|] in the darkness, but shall hold the light of life.”

“if one should walk about [peripath=|] in the day, he will not strike (his foot) against (a stone), (in) that [i.e. because] he sees (by) the light of this world; but if one should walk about [peripath=|] in the night, he does strike (his foot) against (a stone), (in) that [i.e. because] the light is not in [i.e. with] him.”

“(For) yet a little time the light is in [i.e. with] you. You must walk about [peripatei=te] as you hold the light, (so) that darkness should not take you down; (for) indeed the (one) walking about [peripatw=n] in the darkness has not seen [i.e. does not know] where he leads (himself).”

The relation of the author’s instruction to these (Johannine) statements by Jesus will be discussed in the next daily note.

February 21: 2 Corinthians 4:3-6

[These notes are part of the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament”; the previous note continued the discussion on verse 18; for an overview of the passage, cf. the main article.]

2 Corinthians 4:3-6

Returning from the discourse in 3:7-18 to his main line of argument, Paul picks up at 4:1-2 from where he left off (in 3:6a). He returns to his primary discussion of the apostolic ministry, and of his relationship (as an apostle) to the Corinthian believers. He defends the boldness with which he speaks, and of his personal integrity as a minister. Unlike some of his apostolic rivals (so it is implied), Paul claims to preach the Gospel openly and honestly, not promoting himself (and his own interests), but rather working always in the service of God and for the good of those to whom he ministers (v. 5).

In verse 3, however, he folds back into the discussion some of the key themes and motifs introduced in the discourse. He utilizes again the motif of the “covering” (ka/lumma, vb kalu/ptw) from the Moses tradition (Exod 34:29-35); previously, it was applied to the Israelite/Jewish people, those who remained self-bound under the old covenant, not realizing that the old covenant has come to an end in the person of Christ. Now, he extends the metaphor to all people, adapting it to the earlier language of 2:15:

“But if, indeed, our good message is covered [kekalumme/non], it is covered in/among the (one)s perishing [a)pollume/noi$]” (4:3)

The “covering” motif is thus applied now to everyone who is unwilling (or unable) to accept the Gospel of Christ. All of humankind is under bondage to the power of sin (and death)—a point Paul expounds in some detail in Romans—and, thus, they are perishing. Only through acceptance of the Gospel and trusting in Jesus Christ, are people saved from perishing. This bondage is implied by Paul’s reference in verse 4 to “the god of this age” (o( qeo\$ tou= ai)w=no$)—cf. also 1 Cor 2:6ff; Gal 1:4; cp. John 12:31; 14:30; 1 Jn 5:19. The language reflects the eschatological dualism of early Christians, which was typical of the period and similar, in many respects, to what we find in the Qumran texts.

Unbelievers are literally those “without trust” (a&pisto$); God has allowed them to remain “blinded” by the world’s covering, the purpose of which is:

“…(so) as not to beam (forth) the (en)lightenment of the good message of the splendor of the Anointed…”

This simply means that the covering (that blinds the unbelievers) does not allow them to see the shining light of the Gospel. Three different words are used here related to the specific idiom of seeing (cf. the discussion on 3:18 in the previous two notes):

    • au)ga/zw—this verb denotes rays of (sun)light (sing. au)gh/) beaming forth, sometimes referring specifically to the sunrise at dawn (i.e., light shining through the darkness); the verb au)ge/w refers more simply to the shining of light, while au)ga/zw includes the idea of the illumination that comes from the radiating light, allowing people to see clearly.
    • fwtismo/$—derived from fw=$ (“light”) and the verb fwti/zw (“give light”), this noun refers specifically to the “illumination” that comes from the light; the translation “enlightenment” is accurate enough, and conveys the important noetic aspect of the light/seeing motif.
    • do/ca—in the context of the Sinai theophany and the Moses tradition, this noun (properly, “esteem, honor”) is best rendered “splendor,” or (more commonly) “glory,” as also in 3:18 (cp. its use in vv. 7-11); the Divine splendor is often understood (and visualized) in terms of a shining aura of brilliant light.

Paul uses a chain of genitives, but the main expression is “the (en)lightenment of the good message” (to\ fwtismo\$ tou= eu)agge/liou)—that is to say, the Gospel brings light (vb au)ga/zw) and enlightenment (fwtismo/$) to the person who receives it. The qualifying genitives that follow (“of the splendor of the Anointed”) can be understood two ways: (1) as a simple objective genitive (or genitive of content), referring to the content of the Gospel; or (2) as what we might call a genitive of destination. In the first instance, the Gospel message is fundamentally about the splendor of Christ—his death and resurrection, exaltation, and divine status/position as Son of God, etc. In the second instance, the Gospel leads the believer to the splendor of Christ (cp. the expression “way of salvation,” etc).

Both ways of reading the expression are valid; however, the idea of removing the covering, along with the tradition of Moses entering the Tent of Meeting (or the rock on mount Sinai) to encounter God, strongly suggests that, upon receiving the Gospel, believers are led/brought into an encounter with the “splendor of God,” which we experience through the “splendor of Christ.”

Indeed, Paul goes on to declare that the Anointed (Christ) is “(the) image [ei)kw/n] of God”, much as he does in Colossians 1:15 (cf. also Romans 8:29). This helps to explain what he means by the expression “the same image” in 3:18 (cf. the previous notes). As the very “image” of God, it stands to reason that Christ would display the same glory. This is expounded in more detail, further developing the light motif (and its association with Jesus), in verse 6:

“For (it is) God, the (One hav)ing said ‘Out of (the) darkness light shall shine,’ who shone (light) in our hearts toward (the en)lightenment of the knowledge of the splendor of God in (the) face of [Yeshua] (the) Anointed.”

To the three light-terms listed above, Paul here adds the verb la/mpw (“shine”), which has more or less the same meaning as au)ga/zw above. Indeed, the two constructions are similar, with comparable chains of genitives. Here in verse 6, the noun gnw=si$ (“knowledge”) holds the same place as eu)agge/lion (“good message,” Gospel) in v. 4. Because of this, many commentators would treat gnw=si$ here as synonymous with eu)agge/lion. In my view, this is incorrect. The parallelism in v. 6 is meant to convey a deeper level of meaning, which may be illustrated as follows:

    • Through the minister (as God’s) servant
      • the Gospel shines forth [vb au)ga/zw] light
        • which leads the believer =>
          • to the splendor of Christ
    • Through the action of God Himself
      • the Knowledge shines forth [la/mpw] light
        • which leads the believer =>
          • to the splendor of God

This Knowledge (gnw=si$) goes beyond the Gospel message, to the believer’s encounter with the image/face of Christ within, in the ‘heart’, at the level of the Spirit. This relates to the question posed in the previous note: how do believers “see” God, when the encounter takes place spiritually, inwardly and invisibly, through Spirit? A key to the answer is found in two details Paul introduces here at the conclusion of the passage: (1) the word gnw=si$ (“knowledge”), and (2) the motif of the “face” (pro/swpon). I will discuss the significance of these in the next daily note.

January 3: Isaiah 9:1-2

Isaiah 9:1-2 [2-3]

Verses 1-6 [2-7] comprise a prophetic poem that brings the section 6:1-9:6 to a close. On the introductory verse in 8:23 [9:1], cf. the previous note; this verse establishes the context for the poem, framing it as a message of hope for the conquered Northern Kingdom of Israel.

Verse 1 [2]

“The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
(for those) sitting in a land of death’s shadow
a light has shone upon them.”

The poem begins with a pair of 3-beat (3+3) couplets, which are clearly in parallel (synonymous parallelism). The darkness/light motif was established in the introductory verse (8:23 [9:1], cf. the previous note), as well as at the conclusion of the prior oracle (8:22). In this respect, 8:23 is transitional between the oracle in 8:19-22 and the poem in 9:1ff. In the poem, the darkness of the earlier judgment-oracle gives way to a new message of hope. The people “walking in darkness,” based on the context of the section (and specified in 8:23), are the people of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Parts of Israel were annexed by Assyria, following the conquests of 734-732 B.C., and turned into Assyrian provinces. A ‘remnant’ of this kingdom persisted for another decade, until the fall of Samaria in 722/721.

The dual motif of “walking” (vb El^h*) and “sitting” (bv^y`, i.e. dwelling, remaining) in darkness is all too appropriate as a figurative description of the Israelite survivors and exiles. In the second couplet, the general image of “darkness” (Ev#j)) is described even more dramatically (and tragically) as “death’s shadow” (“shadow of death,” tw#m*l=x^). The contrast with darkness, naturally enough, is light (roa). Light shines (vb Hg^n`) on this devastated people, bringing hope of salvation and restoration. This Isaian light-theme (2:5; 10:17; 13:10; 26:19; 30:26, etc) will be developed further in the Deutero- (and Trito-)Isaian poems, applying the message of the 8th century oracles to the situation of Judah’s exile (and eventual return) in the 6th century—cf. 42:6, 16; 49:6; 51:4; 58:8ff; 60:1-3ff, 19-20, etc.

Verse 2 [3]

“You multiplied the(ir) rejoicing,
you made great the(ir) joy—
they have joy before you,
as (the) joy in the harvest,
as when (men) circle (in joy)
in their dividing (the) plunder!”

Textual Note: With most commentators, I read hl*yG!h^ (“the rejoicing”) in line 1, rather than MT (also in 1QIsaa) al) yoGh^ (“the nation / not…”).

The meter in verse 3 shifts, from a pair of 3-beat couplets, to a trio of 2-beat (2+2) couplets.

The light that shines upon the people produces an experience of joy. Two parallel roots are used to express this. The first (lines 1 and 5) is lyG], which literally means “to (move in a) circle”, i.e., to dance and circle around joyfully. The second (lines 2-4) is jm^c*, which refers more generally to a feeling of gladness and joy. Two illustrative images are then used to depict the joy that these people feel: (a) the joy experienced with the coming of the harvest, and (b) the military imagery of victorious soldiers rejoicing when they receive a share of booty/plunder (ll^v*) after the battle.

The perfect tenses of the verb refer to the coming restoration as some which has already taken place; this is not uncommon in Old Testament prophecy, but should be distinguished from use of the precative perfect, more common in the Psalms, where one expresses what one wishes (or expects) to happen as though it has already occurred.

December 21: John 1:9

John 1:9

“He was the true Light, that which gives light (to) all men, coming into the world.”

The opinion of critical commentators is divided as to whether verse 9 of the Prologue should be considered as part of the excursus in vv. 6-8 (discussed in the previous note), or as an integral part of the underlying hymn. In my view, the former it to be preferred. I would include v. 9 as the climactic point of the statement in vv. 6ff, perhaps best rendered as an epexegetical clause rather than an independent sentence:

“There came to be a man, having been se(n)t forth from alongside God, (and the) name (given) to him (was) Yohanan. This (one) came unto [i.e. to be] a witness, (so) that he should give witness about the Light, (so) that all might trust through him. That (one) was not the Light, but (came so) that he might give witness about the Light—(he who) was the true Light, which gives light (to) every man, coming into the world.”

It is possible to read to\ fw=$ (“the light”) in v. 9 as the true subject, but I think it preferable to treat it as a nominative predicate (which still functions as the subject = the Logos). There are three component phrases to the statement in verse 9, and each of these should be examined.

1. h@n to\ fw=$ to\ a)lhqino/n (“[he who] was the true light”)

As I interpret this phrase, the subject is implicit, related to the clause in v. 8 and its final words to\ fw=$ (“the light”). As part of the comparison between John the Baptist and Jesus, built into vv. 6-9, it is clearly stated that John was not (ou)k h@n) the Light—which means that Jesus was (h@n) the Light. This continues the distinctive use of the verb of being (ei)mi) in the Prologue, where it is reserved for God. By definition, a human being (“man”) like John the Baptist cannot be in the way that God (or the Logos) is. Here, of course, the Prologue assumes the Gospel narrative, regarding the way that John the Baptist gave witness to Jesus (1:19ff, 29-34, 35ff; 3:22-30[ff]). Early Christians would understand vv. 6-8 as alluding to this, and so the rather abrupt syntactical transition, between verse 8 and 9, causes no real problem for the development of the thought. John gave witness to Jesus, the light, who was, indeed, the true Light (of God).

The adjective a)lhqino/$ (“true”) is very much a Johannine keyword, along with the related adjective a)lhqh/$ and noun a)lh/qeia (“truth”). The noun a)lh/qeia occurs 25 times in the Gospel and another 20 in the Letters of John; the adjective a)lhqh/$ occurs 14 times in the Gospel and 3 in the Letters, while a)lhqino/$ is used 9 times in the Gospel and 4 in the Letters. Taken together, these three words occur 85 times in the Gospel and Letters (more than half of all NT occurrences [163]). The adjective a)lhqino/$ is even more distinctively Johannine; apart from the 23 occurrences in the Gospel and Letters, it occurs 10 times in the book of Revelation (often considered a Johannine writing), and just 5 times elsewhere in the New Testament.

As an adjective, a)lhqino/$ is used as a divine characteristic, as the statements in 17:3 and 1 Jn 5:20 make clear. Thus, when used in an illustrative context—e.g., “true light”, “true bread” (6:32), “true vine” (15:1)—the illustrations are meant to convey a sense of the divine substance that underlies the metaphor. Such an expository purpose is central to the form and function of the Discourses of Jesus in the Gospel of John, whereby Jesus, through the discourse process, explains the true/deeper meaning of his words. The specific light-metaphor occurs several more times in the Gospel, at key points in the narrative—3:19-21; 8:12; 9:5ff; 11:9-10; 12:35-36, 46—including at least one “I Am” (e)gw/ ei)mi) statement by Jesus (8:12; 9:5). In all of these passages, Jesus clearly identifies himself as the “true light”, the Light of God. The expression “the true light” occurs again in 1 John 2:8, echoing the language and thought of the Prologue: “…the darkness leads (the way) along [i.e. passes by], and the true Light now shines”.

2. o^ fwti/zei pa/nta a&qrwpon (“which gives light [to] every man”)

This phrase essentially restates the thought expressed in verse 4b, where it was declared that the life (i.e., the Divine Life) in the Logos also “was the Light of men” (h@n to\ fw=$ tw=n a)nqrw/pwn). The only real difference here is that humankind is treated individually (“every man”) rather than collectively (“[all] men”). As previously discussed, this “light” is not the natural light of reason or intelligence, but the Light of God Himself. The pre-existent Logos possesses this same Divine Light, and it is through the Logos that God gives this Light to human beings. The verb fwti/zw is an active (transitive) verb derived from the root word fw=$ (“light”); the principal meaning is thus “give light”. Both noun and verb are fundamental to the Johannine theological vocabulary, and so their introduction here in the Prologue, as I indicated previously, is of some significance.

3. e)rxo/menon ei)$ to\n ko/smon (“coming into the world”)

It is not entirely clear whether the participle e)rxo/menon (“coming”) refers to the effective subject fw=$ (“light” = the Logos) or the object in the preceding phrase (“man”). Grammatically, the participle could be parsed as either nominative or accusative. If it modifies the object “man”, then the verse would read “…every man coming into the world”. However, in my view, the context overwhelmingly favors reading e)rxo/menon in the nominative case, referring back to “the true light”. It is thus the Light, represented by the Logos of God, that is “coming into the world”. This statement foreshadows what follows in verses 10-11ff, which we will begin discussing in the next daily note.

As a concluding thought, it is worth pointing out the traditional Messianic association with light. In particular, there are several passages in the book of Isaiah, which came to be interpreted in a Messianic sense, where the motif of light is prominent—cf. especially, 9:2ff; 42:6; and 60:1-2ff. The Deutero-Isaian passages seem to have influenced the hymns in the Lukan Infancy narrative (1:78-79; 2:32), where the light-motif is applied to Jesus as the Messiah. Matthew similarly cites Isa 9:2 to mark the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry (4:14-16).

December 20: John 1:6-8

John 1:6-8

The lines referring to John the Baptist (vv. 6-8, 15) are considered by many commentators to be secondary additions to the Christ-hymn which otherwise forms the core of the Johannine Prologue. Their inclusion is seen as either the work of an editor (to the initial version of the Gospel), or by the Gospel writer himself (to an existing hymn). The verses are prosaic and explanatory, generally lacking the poetic rhythm and style that characterizes the rest of the Prologue (examined in the previous notes on vv. 1-5). Functionally, their purpose in the Prologue is two-fold:

First, they serve to connect the Prologue with the opening sections of the Gospel narrative, in which John the Baptist is featured (1:19-35ff, also 3:22-30ff). This is especially important if the Gospel is adapting an existing Christ-hymn, which likely would have made no mention of the Baptist.

Second, they introduce an important theme of the opening sections—the relationship between John and Jesus, with emphasis on the superiority of Jesus and his definitive identity as the Anointed One (Messiah). This theme is not unique to the Gospel of John, but was part of the early Christian and Gospel tradition. In the Synoptic tradition (as in the Gospel of John), the Gospel narrative begins with the appearance of John the Baptist, along with a summary of his preaching and baptizing ministry. The central event of this tradition is the baptism of Jesus (Mk 1:9-11 par, cp. Jn 1:29-34), but it relates to important questions regarding the relationship between John and Jesus, questions which were of Messianic significance. As the Gospels themselves make clear, there were at least some Jews at the time who considered that John the Baptist might be the Messiah (Lk  3:15ff; Jn 1:19-23ff; cf. Mk 6:14-16 par; 8:28 par). Early Christians would have had no motivation to record these details if they did not stem from authentic tradition.

In speaking of the “Anointed One” (Messiah), it is important to keep in mind that there were a number of Messianic figure-types within Jewish thought in the first centuries B.C./A.D. The royal Messiah (i.e., the Davidic ruler figure-type) is the most familiar, but there were other figure-types, including several Messianic Prophet types. The two main prophetic types were based on the figures of Elijah and Moses, respectively; in addition, we have the anointed herald figure of Isa 61:1ff, echoed in a number of other (Deutero-)Isaian passages (such as 40:1-5). It is hard to see how people at the time could have viewed John as the Davidic Messiah, if the Gospel portrait of him and his ministry is accurate. However, he certainly might have been considered to be a Messianic Prophet, either of the Elijah, Moses, or Isaian herald type. Early Christian tradition ultimately came to interpret John as the “Elijah” who would ‘prepare the way’ for Jesus as the true Messiah, and this already is reflected at several points in the Synoptic narrative.

However, in the Fourth Gospel (1:19-23), John denies being this figure at all—any form of the Messianic Prophet, apart from a fulfillment of the herald figure of Isa 40:3ff. The implication is that Jesus is the Messianic Prophet (both the Moses and Elijah types), and much of the early Gospel tradition seems to evince the same belief. Indeed, during Jesus’ Galilean ministry, he appears to fulfill the role of “Elijah” (and note his identification with both Moses and Elijah in the Transfiguration scene), though the Anointed Herald of Isaiah 61 provides a closer fit for his ministry as it is described in the Synoptic narrative. Jesus identifies himself with the Isaian figure-type in at least two different strands of tradition (Matt 11:4-5 par [Q], and Lk 4:16-21ff). For more on this subject, cf. Parts 2 and 3 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”, along with the series “Jesus and the Gospel Tradition” (articles on the Baptism of Jesus).

In the earliest tradition, the “Anointed One” (Messiah) mentioned in Jn 1:20ff most likely referred to a Messianic Prophet, as noted above. However, by the time that the Gospel of John was written, Christians almost certainly would have understood the term in its more customary sense of the Davidic Ruler type. In any case, by the end of the New Testament period, the concept of Messiah (= Christ) had broadened among early Christians to encompass most, if not all, of the Messianic figure-types—with all of them being applied to the person of Jesus. This is unquestionably how Johannine Christians of the late-1st century would have understood the matter, reflecting the clear belief that Jesus was the Messiah, in every sense. For a full discussion, cf. the articles in the series “Yeshua the Anointed”.

But the Gospel of John goes even further than this, as the opening lines of the Prologue make clear. Not only is Jesus to be identified as the Messiah, but with the pre-existent Word and Wisdom of God as well.

Let us briefly examine verses 6-8 in more detail.

“There came to be a man, having been se(n)t forth from alongside God, (and the) name (given) to him (was) Yohanan. This (one) came unto [i.e. to be] a witness, (so) that he should give witness about the Light, (so) that all might trust through him. That (one) was not the Light, but (came so) that he might give witness about the Light.”

The first thing to note is the way that these verses continue the distinction (in the Prologue) between the verb of being (ei)mi) and becoming (gi/nomai). The verb of becoming is used for created beings, while the verb of being is reserved for God. Therefore, in speaking of John the Baptist, gi/nomai is used: “There came to be [e)ge/neto] a man…” —that is, a certain human being came to be born and live on earth. The verb of being (ei)mi, imperfect h@n, “was”) is used in verse 8, but only by way of negation: “that (one) [i.e. John] was not [ou)k h@n]…”. In Johannine theological terminology, this means that the Baptist was simply a human being, unlike Jesus, who has/had divine existence as the Logos.

Note also other parallels in terminology, as if the comparison (between John and Jesus) was being introduced here in linguistic terms:

    • John was “sent forth” from God, even as Jesus (the Son) was sent—cp. 3:17, 34, etc (same vb a)poste/llw)
    • John was sent from “alongside” (para/) God (meaning the command came from God), while the Son had his pre-existent dwelling “alongside” God, being truly sent from Him (v. 14, 17:5, etc; in vv. 1-2 the preposition is pro/$ [“toward”], rather than para/, but with much the same meaning)
    • John is identified as the one sent by God with the designation “this one” (ou!to$), using the demonstrative pronoun, much as Jesus (“this one”) is identified with the Logos in v. 2.
    • “All things” in the universe come into being “through” Jesus the Logos (“through him,” di’ au)tou=), while “all (people)” were able to trust in Jesus (as the Messiah) through the witness of John (“through him”).

The most important point of comparison is that, while John functioned as a light (cf. 5:35, where he is called a ‘lamp’ [lu/xno$] that shines light), but he is not the light (to\ fw=$)—that is, the Light of God, which Jesus, the pre-existent Word/Wisdom of God possesses. John’s light is secondary, since he merely functions as a witness (marturi/a, vb marture/w) to the Light. Jesus also is a witness to the Light, but in a different way, since he manifests and embodies the Divine Light in his very person. This light-motif, or characteristic, will be discussed further in the next daily note (on verse 9).

December 18: John 1:4-5

John 1:4-5

Verses 4 and 5 are interrelated, combining in their lines the themes of life (zwh/) and light (fw=$). Both of these themes, apart from their value each as a natural religious (and theological) metaphor, are specifically associated with the divine Wisdom in Old Testament and Jewish tradition. Verse 4 emphasizes life, while verse 5 focuses on the theme of light.

Life (zwh/), verse 4

“In him was life,
and th(is) life was the light of men”

There are many references to life in the Wisdom literature, associated with the Wisdom of God. These tend to emphasize natural life (i.e., long life) as much as the divine/eternal life, but there is a clear association between Wisdom and the life-giving power of God. Of the many verses that could be cited, see Prov 3:16, 18; 4:13, 22-23; 8:32-35; 13:14; 15:24; 16:22; Sirach 4:12f; Wisdom 6:18-19; Baruch 3:14; 4:1.

The term lo/go$, and the Logos-concept, blends the idea of Wisdom together with the Word of God. YHWH spoke the universe into existence through His life-giving Word (Gen 1:1ff), the same Word which spoke the Torah to Moses, the oracles to the Prophets, and wisdom for the righteous. The term “instruction” similarly encompasses both aspects—word and wisdom—and, indeed, the Instruction (Torah) came to be personified in Jewish tradition, much like the Word and Wisdom of God. The Old Testament basis for this, associating the Torah with the life-giving Word of YHWH, can be seen in passages such as the Song of Moses (Deut 32:47), the great Psalm 119 (vv. 17, 25, 107), and other references as well. Baruch 4:1 is a good example of how closely the personified Torah and Wisdom were connected in Jewish thought.

Here in the Prologue, eternal life, the life of God is said to be “in” (e)n) the Logos. This goes well beyond the idea that God created all things through the Logos (thus giving them life), as expressed in verse 3. In verse 4, the focus is on the life that God Himself possesses, and which the Logos shares. This is the special (theological) meaning of the noun zwh/ as it is used throughout the Johannine writings. The noun occurs 36 times in the Gospel and 13 more in the Letters; if we add in the 17 occurrences in the book of Revelation (counting it as a Johannine work), that comes to nearly half of all the New Testament occurrences of the word (66 out of 135). Clearly “life” is an important keyword in the Johannine writings, and the way it is introduced here in the Prologue is significant indeed.

The second line of the verse (“and the life was the light of men”) is a bit more difficult to explain. Again, it would be easy to interpret this in a natural sense—i.e., the wisdom of God that enlightens human beings (esp. the righteous). This is certainly a fundamental theme of Wisdom literature, as there are many passages which associate Wisdom (and, similarly the Word and Torah of God) with light—cf. Psalm 36:9; 119:105, 130; Prov 4:18; 6:23; Eccl 2:13; Wisdom 7:10, 26ff; 18:4; Sirach 32:16; Baruch 3:14; 4:1-2.

However, it must be emphasized here that, just as zwh/ refers to the life of God (i.e., divine/eternal Life), so also fw=$ in the Gospel of John refers to divine Light—the light of God that is manifest in the person of Jesus (the Son). It is another way that Jesus is identified with the Logos—the Word and Wisdom of God—in the Prologue (cf. the prior note on v. 2).

Light (fw=$), verse 5

“and the light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness did not take it down.”

While the term “light” (fw=$) was introduced in verse 4, it is featured here in v. 5, establishing the important dualistic contrast between light and darkness (skoti/a). This light-vs-darkness contrast is natural, and occurs quite frequently as a religious and ethical motif in many traditions worldwide. It is used by a number of New Testament authors (and speakers), but is particularly prominent in the Johannine writings, being featured at several important points in the discourses: at the climax of the Nicodemus discourse (3:19), as part of the Light-theme in the Tabernacles discourses (8:12), the entire chapter 9 episode (healing the blind man, see v. 4), and at the conclusion of the first half of the Gospel (the ‘Book of Signs’, 12:35, 46; cp. 11:10). There also several key allusions within the traditional narrative, which take on added meaning in a Johannine context (cf. 3:2; 6:17; 13:30; 19:39; 20:1; 21:3). The “world” (ko/smo$) is dominated by darkness, while light belongs to the domain of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and those who trust in him.

The verbs used here in verse 5 are worth noting. The first, fai/nw, means “shine”. It is, of course, a natural verb to use in reference to light; however, like the related noun fw=$, it has special meaning as part of the Johannine vocabulary. Admittedly, the verb fai/nw occurs just three times (here, and in 5:35; 1 Jn 2:8); but when we combine these with the 29 occurrences of fw=$ (23 in the Gospel, 6 in the Letters), along with the related verb fanero/w (“make [to] shine forth”), an extensive thematic portrait emerges. Jesus, the Son and Logos of God, possesses the divine Light of God, and, in his own person and work, makes this Light “shine forth” to others.

The second verb, in the second line of v. 5, is katalamba/nw, which literally means “take down”. It can be understood in a negative, positive, or neutral sense; the parallel in 12:35 strongly suggests a negative meaning here—i.e., of a person who attempts to take someone down, with hostile or evil intent. The opposition of darkness to light means that darkness will attempt to “take down” (i.e., bring down, cover over, extinguish) the light. This dualism is fundamental to the Johannine theology and Christian worldview, as noted above. The world is opposed to God the Father—and thus also is hostile to Jesus the Son, and to the believers who trust in him. This thematic emphasis runs through all the Discourses, and is developed in a number of important ways.

Elsewhere, in the Johannine Letters, the same dualism is present. Jesus is the “true light” of God that has shone forth in the darkness of the world (cf. 1 Jn 1:5-7ff; 2:8-11). Light and darkness are fundamentally opposed and cannot co-exist. Ultimately, the light of God dispels the darkness completely.

In concluding our study on this part of the Prologue, it is worth presenting again verses 3-5 as a poetic unit:

“All (thing)s came to be through him,
and apart (from) him came to be
not even one (thing) that has come to be.
In him was life,
and th(is) life was the light of men;
and the light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness did not take it down.”

A pair of 3-line (tricolon) sub-units surround the central declaration “in him was life”. The first three lines (v. 3) refer to the original creation of the world, while the last three lines (in v. 4) describe the origins of the new creation that is introduced through the person and work of Jesus (identified with the Logos). Like the eternal Wisdom and Word of God, the Son brings life and light to all things. In particular, it is to the chosen ones (believers), who are able to experience the divine Life and Light in a way that the world simply cannot. Since the world has come to be dominated by darkness, it is only the believers, currently living in the world, who are able to embrace the light.

February 14: Revelation 22:3b-5

Revelation 22:3b-4

“And the ruling-seat of God and of the Lamb will be in her, and His slaves will perform service for Him” (v. 3b)

In the first part of this section (vv. 1-3a, cf. the previous note), the imagery from the Genesis Creation narratives (chaps. 2-3) was applied to the “new Jerusalem” as a way of capturing the specific idea of a new Creation (21:1). The old order of Creation, bound as it was under a ‘curse’ by God (Gen 3:16-19), is no more, and, as a result, the curse has been removed (v. 3a). The remainder of the section (vv. 3b-5) summarizes the new situation for humankind (believers) in the holy city. It is possible to view verse 3 as a chiasm, reflecting this change (from old to new):

    • There will no longer be anything of the curse (on humankind)
      • The Divine Presence: The throne of God and the Lamb is in the city
    • Humankind (believers) will serve God, ruling alongside Him

Moreover, there is a formal contrast indicated by the Greek, speaking to how the manner of existence has changed:

    • The curse will not be [ou)k e)stin] any longer
    • The throne of God and the Lamb will be [e)stin] in her

The curse of the old Creation was marked the removal of human beings from God’s Presence (Gen 3:22-24), but in the new Creation they have returned and have direct access to God (vv. 4-5, below). The rendering of dou=loi as “slaves” can be misleading, due to the associations of the word “slave” in English with oppression and suffering. Many translators prefer “servant”, especially when used in the context of believers (who certainly are not being oppressed by God); however, “slave” is the more accurate translation of dou=lo$. Here, the idea is that of one who performs (obligatory or hired) service for a superior, using the verb latreu/w. When God is the object (of the service), this verb can refer to priests performing their required duties. The only other occurrence of the verb in the book of Revelation is in the vision of chapter 7 (v. 15), of the multitude of believers gathered around the throne of God in heaven; the meaning (and context) here is the same. The noun dou=lo$ is used repeatedly of believers in the book of Revelation (1:1; 7:3; 19:2, etc), even as it occurs similarly throughout the New Testament; sometimes it refers specifically to Christians as ministers—missionaries and preachers, etc—who are performing special service for God.

“…and they will look with (open) eyes at His face, and His name (is) upon the (space) between their eyes.” (v. 4)

To see God directly, with our eyes, is the supreme goal for humankind, and it is only realized (for believers) in the New Age. The impossibility of such a visionary experience in the old Creation, the current Age, is noted at many points, in the Old Testament, Jewish tradition, and in the New Testament—cf. Exod 33:20-23; John 1:18; 6:46, etc. Indeed, to see the face of God meant death to the person, and the “face of God” was frequently used as an idiom for the manifestation of divine Judgment (e.g., Rev 6:16). At the same time, it could reflect the positive aspect of experiencing blessings from God, as in the traditional priestly benediction (Num 6:25-26). The hope of a blessed afterlife, dwelling with God in heaven, gave to the idiom a distinctive eschatological emphasis (Psalm 17:15; Matt 5:8; Heb 12:14; 2/4 Esdras 7:98, etc). In the New Testament, the clearest references to the eschatological hope of a direct vision of God, seeing Him face-to-face, are in 1 Cor 13:12 and 1 John 3:2. Here, the hope is depicted as being fulfilled for believers in the “new Jerusalem”.

Believers are able to see God because they/we belong to Him, and this is indicated specifically by the motif of God’s name being written on the forehead (lit. space “between the eyes”). It is almost as though our vision is enabled by this mark between our eyes. The motif has been used repeatedly in the book of Revelation. Believers have the name of God (and of Christ, the Lamb) written or stamped on their forehead (7:3; 9:4; 14:1); by contrast, the wicked (non-believers) bear the name/mark of the evil Sea-creature (servant of the Dragon/Satan), 13:16; 14:9; 20:4; cf. also 17:5. The name on the forehead corresponds to the names that are written down on the citizen-roll of the “new Jerusalem”, i.e. the “scroll of Life” (13:8; 17:8; 21:27). Thus, believers truly belong to the holy city where God Himself dwells.

Revelation 22:5

“And there will not be night any longer, and they hold no business with [i.e. have no need for] (the) light of a lamp and (the) light of (the) sun, (in) that [i.e. because] the Lord God (Himself) will give light upon them, and they will rule as king(s) into the Ages of Ages.”

The statement in verse 5b essentially repeats that of 21:23-25, in the description of the “new Jerusalem” (the city proper, cf. the earlier note). Here, the focus has shifted from the city to the people (believers); instead of the divine Light of God illuminating the city, here it shines on God’s people. This merely demonstrates the nature and meaning of the symbolism itself—the “new Jerusalem” is not a city per se, but represents the people of God. The reference to both a “lamp” (lu/xno$) and the sun is an allusion to 21:23, where God is the ultimate source of light (i.e. the sun), and Jesus Christ (the Lamb) is the ‘lamp’ that illuminates/radiates this same light. For a similar idea, expressed more in Christological terms, cf. Hebrews 1:3; Col 1:15; 2 Cor 4:6.

While believers are called “slaves” who serve God, they/we are also said to “rule as king(s)” (vb basileu/w), together with God and Christ. This reflects the earlier visionary scene of 20:4-6 (cf. the earlier note, and my separate study on the “Thousand Years”). Elsewhere in the book, the verb is used of the exalted Jesus (the Lamb), or of God Himself. The same wording occurs in 11:15:

“The kingdoms of the world came to be of [i.e. belonging to] our Lord and His Anointed, and He will rule as king into the Ages of Ages.”

As the exalted Jesus rules alongside God the Father, so believers now rule alongside them both together. This image (and that in 20:4-6) may be influenced by (Daniel 7:18), with the (eschatological) promise that God’s people—the “holy ones of the Most High” —will receive the Kingdom and possess it forever.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 2019EschatologyNT_header1a.png

February 9: Revelation 21:22-23

Revelation 21:22-27

Having depicted the heavenly city of the “new Jerusalem” generally, and its walls (gate-ways and foundations) in particular, the vision proceeds to describe life within the city, in two respects: (1) its dependence on the presence of God Himself (and of Christ the Lamb), and (2) its relation to the ‘outside world’ (the nations). This section may be divided into three parts:

    • The presence of God and Christ takes the place of outward, earthly forms (vv. 22-23)
    • The surrounding nations are drawn to this eternal Light (vv. 24-26)
    • Who and what is allowed into the City (vv. 27)
Revelation 21:22-23

When compared to ordinary human cities, the situation in the “new Jerusalem” is very different, in that the presence of God (and Christ) takes the place of outward, earthly forms. This is symbolized two ways—one religious (the Temple), and the other natural (light).

“And I did not see (any) shrine [i.e. Temple/sanctuary] in her, for the Lord God the All-mighty is her shrine, (as) also (is) the Lamb.” (v. 22)

The Jerusalem Temple sanctuary (nao/$) plays a key role in the book of Revelation at several points. This, of course, is symbolic, and no real conclusions can be made regarding the date of the book, based on these references—i.e., whether it was written before or after the destruction of the Temple (70 A.D.). Early Christians were perfectly capable of making important use of the Temple, figuratively, long after the physical building-complex in Jerusalem had been destroyed. The Christian use of the Temple as a symbol preceded its destruction by several decades, going back to Jesus’ own words and the early Gospel Tradition (on the relationship between Jesus and the Temple, cf. my earlier article in the series “The Law and the New Testament”). A tendency to spiritualize the Temple is found throughout the New Testament. Already Jesus and the earliest believers appear to have relativized the importance of the Temple (and its cultus), envisioning a different purpose for its (symbolic) space (cf. my article on the Temple in Luke-Acts). Earlier in this series, I discussed the significance of the Temple in Jewish eschatology and Messianism.

Of special importance was the early Christian tendency to identify the Temple with the person of Jesus himself (Matt 12:6; Mark 15:38 par; John 2:19ff [cf. Mk 14:58 par]; Eph 2:20); by extension, Paul especially identified believers—individually and collectively (the ‘body of Christ’)—with the Temple building (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21-22). The book of Revelation clearly recognizes this same sort of symbolism (3:12, etc), while retaining a more concrete sense of the Jerusalem Temple as an actual sanctuary. Let us briefly survey the visionary passages which feature the idea of the Temple sanctuary (nao/$):

    • As part of the vision(s) of chapter 7, believers who have come through the period of distress now have an exalted position before the throne of God and “give service to Him day and night in His shrine” (7:15). Clearly this is a heavenly sanctuary, centered around the very presence of God.
    • In 11:1ff, the Jerusalem Temple (its sanctuary and altar) serves symbolically to distinguish faithful believers from the rest of the wicked city (possessed by the nations). The earthly Jerusalem is called the “great city” (v. 8), a label otherwise reserved in Revelation for the wicked “Babylon” (and/or Rome). I discuss the parallels with chapter 21 (the measuring of the city, etc) in a prior note.
    • In 11:19, we read specifically of “the shrine of God th(at is) in heaven”; again the very presence of God is indicated (symbolized traditionally by the golden box [ark] of the Covenant). It is from this heavenly sanctuary that the great Judgment (and the messages regarding it) issues forth.
    • Along this line, voices and Messengers are heard/seen coming from out of the heavenly sanctuary, where God resides—14:15, 17; 15:5-8; 16:1, 17.

Thus, in all but one instance, the sanctuary (nao/$) refers to God’s presence in heaven. Now that God Himself resides directly with his people, i.e. in the “new Jerusalem”, there is certainly no longer any need for a Temple-building as such. Even the idea of a heavenly sanctuary seems to have disappeared, indicating a level of closeness and union, between God and His people, that transcends even the earlier throne-vision scenes in the book. There is also a clear contrast with the scene in 11:1ff:

    • Ch. 11—Believers exist in the world, living in the wicked “great city” (earthly Jerusalem). The faithful are separated from the world only by the space of the sanctuary (understood figuratively), where they gather around the ‘altar’, i.e. in the presence of God.
    • Ch. 21—Believers are no longer limited to the space of the sanctuary, for now the entire city is pure and holy, and there can be nothing wicked in it any longer.

In this regard, the vision in chapter 21 is quite different from similar depictions of a future/glorious Jerusalem, both in the Old Testament and subsequently in Jewish eschatology. The Temple—envisioned as a real, if idealized, building—features prominently in Ezekiel’s great vision (chaps. 40-48), as also in Zech 14:16-21, and other prophetic passages. Of other eschatological references, we may note Tobit 14:5; 1 Enoch 91:13; 2 Baruch 32:4 (cf. Koester, p. 820, and my earlier article). The Qumran Community certainly expected the Temple to be at the center of the New Age, whether in terms of a restoration/transformation of the existing building, or as a new (heavenly) Temple which God will build (or send) in its place—cf. the Temple scroll [11Q19] 29:8-10; 11Q18 frs. 19, 20; 2Q24 fr. 4 l. 3; 4Q400-405.

“And the city held no occasion of [i.e. need for] (the) sun, and not the moon (either), that they would shine forth in her, for the splendor [do/ca] of God gave light (to) her, and her lamp is the Lamb.” (v. 23)

There was also no need in this city for any natural light—that is, coming from the natural sources of the sun and moon. While the vision may genuinely understand the absence of sun and moon as an authentic cosmological detail in the New Age, it would be a mistake for us to make too much of this. The ancient cosmology of the first-century Near East, including the place of the sun and moon in it, is radically different from our expanded view of the universe today. What is most important here is the idea of the sun and moon as the primary sources of natural light. Instead, believers in the “new Jerusalem” rely on supernatural heavenly/divine Light that comes from the very presence of God and Christ.

This motif derives largely from Isaiah 60:19 (also vv. 1-2); as we shall see, a number of details here in verses 22-27 stem from the oracle in Isaiah 60. Of all the elements or features of the natural world, light was chosen, due to its primary religious and theological significance (which hardly needs to be demonstrated), as well as the way in which it marks the beginning of the original creation (Gen 1:3). Since God was the source of the first (created) light, His manifest presence provides an even greater, and truer, source of pure light. Jesus is also identified with light-imagery, especially in the Johannine tradition (Jn 1:4-9; 3:19-21; 8:12; 9:5; 11:9-10; 12:35-36, 46; 1 Jn 1:5, 7; 2:8-10), where the imagery goes beyond the traditional Messianic associations (Matt 4:16; Luke 1:79; 2:32, etc). The specification here of Jesus as a “lamp”, as opposed to God as the true source of the light, suggests a Christological ‘subordination’ that would make many Christians uncomfortable; however, it generally reflects early Christian thought on the matter, though perhaps formulated not as precisely as we might like. The exalted Jesus rules alongside God the Father, sharing the same authority and power, but he still receives this from the Father. This, too, is a key point of Johannine theology, which Jesus himself declares repeatedly throughout the Gospel Discourses.

In the next daily note, we will explore the next part of this visionary description, of the relation of the city’s Divine Light to the surrounding nations. This presence of the “nations” in the vision raises certain difficulties of interpretation, as we shall see.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 2019EschatologyNT_header1a.png