Thursday, September 20, 2012
Darkness vs. Light
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it (John 1.5)
This seems like a pretty straightforward statement doesn't it? Darkness doesn't overcome light. Boom! Let's move on to verse 6. Not so fast. Let me show you how this verse is translated in some different English versions:
The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. (NIV)
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (KJV)
And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not. (ASV)
And the light shines on in the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it. (NET)
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it. (NLT)
Unless you are brain dead, you see the problem here. Does the Greek word translated overcome by the ESV mean understood, or comprehend, or apprehend, or mastered, or extinguish? If you're super smart you've already answered: "How in the world should I be able to come to a conclusion if brilliant translators can't even figure it out?" Ah, grasshopper, if you asked that question, you are very smart indeed.
Here is where we come to understand that translation is an inexact science. Not every word has an exact match in another language, especially when those languages are separated by broad cultural differences and 2000 years. The word that the ESV translates overcome (katelaben) is one of those words that just can't be translated directly into our language, but that's not the only problem (and you thought Bible study was going to be easy). The other problem is that katelaben (katalambano) can be translated five different ways from Greek to English. It can mean acquire or attack or seize or overpower or understand. [Before you get on your high horse and start complaining about the Greek language consider the word bad. Depending on the context it can mean immoral, or evil, or rotten, or broken, or even good!?! [Dude! That is a bad corvette you have!] depending on the context in which it is used].
One commentator [wryly?] points out the difficulty here: It is apparent that the darkness had no chance of victory over the light, but the phrasing is ambiguous due to the variety of figurative senses available for the verb katalambanÅ, which literally means “to take hold of, seize.”
Does John mean the darkness does not attack the light, or does not seize the light or does not overpower the light? Usually from the context one can come to a pretty good possibility which way the word is used, but in this particular verse, it is ambiguous. So as a translator one just chooses the best possibility and that's about all one can do.
A. T. Robertson is pretty helpful here as he teases out what John meant:
The word is used in the sense of laying hold of so as to make one’s own; hence, to take possession of. Used of obtaining the prize in the games (1 Cor. 9:24); of attaining righteousness (Rom. 9:30); of a demon taking possession of a man (Mark 9:18); of the day of the Lord overtaking one as a thief (1 Thess. 5:4). Applied to darkness, this idea includes that of eclipsing or overwhelming. Hence some render overcame (Westcott, Moulton). John’s thought is, that in the struggle between light and darkness, light was victorious. The darkness did not appropriate the light and eclipse it [emphasis added].
I think Robertson sums up the meaning pretty well. The darkness did not appropriate the light and eclipse it. Light was victorious.
So if you're going to choose one side or the other [and oh by the way, you are!], darkness or light, only one of the two is going to win by overcoming and that would be light.
This seems like a pretty straightforward statement doesn't it? Darkness doesn't overcome light. Boom! Let's move on to verse 6. Not so fast. Let me show you how this verse is translated in some different English versions:
The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. (NIV)
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (KJV)
And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not. (ASV)
And the light shines on in the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it. (NET)
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it. (NLT)
Unless you are brain dead, you see the problem here. Does the Greek word translated overcome by the ESV mean understood, or comprehend, or apprehend, or mastered, or extinguish? If you're super smart you've already answered: "How in the world should I be able to come to a conclusion if brilliant translators can't even figure it out?" Ah, grasshopper, if you asked that question, you are very smart indeed.
Here is where we come to understand that translation is an inexact science. Not every word has an exact match in another language, especially when those languages are separated by broad cultural differences and 2000 years. The word that the ESV translates overcome (katelaben) is one of those words that just can't be translated directly into our language, but that's not the only problem (and you thought Bible study was going to be easy). The other problem is that katelaben (katalambano) can be translated five different ways from Greek to English. It can mean acquire or attack or seize or overpower or understand. [Before you get on your high horse and start complaining about the Greek language consider the word bad. Depending on the context it can mean immoral, or evil, or rotten, or broken, or even good!?! [Dude! That is a bad corvette you have!] depending on the context in which it is used].
One commentator [wryly?] points out the difficulty here: It is apparent that the darkness had no chance of victory over the light, but the phrasing is ambiguous due to the variety of figurative senses available for the verb katalambanÅ, which literally means “to take hold of, seize.”
Does John mean the darkness does not attack the light, or does not seize the light or does not overpower the light? Usually from the context one can come to a pretty good possibility which way the word is used, but in this particular verse, it is ambiguous. So as a translator one just chooses the best possibility and that's about all one can do.
A. T. Robertson is pretty helpful here as he teases out what John meant:
The word is used in the sense of laying hold of so as to make one’s own; hence, to take possession of. Used of obtaining the prize in the games (1 Cor. 9:24); of attaining righteousness (Rom. 9:30); of a demon taking possession of a man (Mark 9:18); of the day of the Lord overtaking one as a thief (1 Thess. 5:4). Applied to darkness, this idea includes that of eclipsing or overwhelming. Hence some render overcame (Westcott, Moulton). John’s thought is, that in the struggle between light and darkness, light was victorious. The darkness did not appropriate the light and eclipse it [emphasis added].
I think Robertson sums up the meaning pretty well. The darkness did not appropriate the light and eclipse it. Light was victorious.
So if you're going to choose one side or the other [and oh by the way, you are!], darkness or light, only one of the two is going to win by overcoming and that would be light.
"The Life was the Light of Men"
Don't you just love someone who gets right to the point of things? They don't tread around the edges of an issue; they jump right in even if it means whacking you over the head with a 2 x 4. John is only four verses into his gospel when he whacks us over the head...hard. He writes: In him [The Word] was life, and the life was the light of men. Doesn't seem like much of a 2 x 4 to you? Oh, it is, trust me.
There is only one conclusion to draw from John's statement: Men need the light. If men need the light then it is clear that they themselves are in darkness. Light and dark will be favorite themes of John—as will life and death and Christ as the Word. Darkness is something that men loved rather than light (John 1.17); however, Christ says: I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness (John 12.44). Christ as the light is fundamentally different from and indeed in opposition to, darkness. Men are in darkness; Christ comes with life [zoe] and this life is the light of men.
So yeah, John is saying here that you need light. Yes, you! If that isn't being smacked in the face with a 2 x 4, then I don't know what qualifies. And while John is at it, there is no getting eternal life if you continue on in darkness, because there can be no rapport between light and darkness, as we shall shortly see.
There is only one conclusion to draw from John's statement: Men need the light. If men need the light then it is clear that they themselves are in darkness. Light and dark will be favorite themes of John—as will life and death and Christ as the Word. Darkness is something that men loved rather than light (John 1.17); however, Christ says: I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness (John 12.44). Christ as the light is fundamentally different from and indeed in opposition to, darkness. Men are in darkness; Christ comes with life [zoe] and this life is the light of men.
So yeah, John is saying here that you need light. Yes, you! If that isn't being smacked in the face with a 2 x 4, then I don't know what qualifies. And while John is at it, there is no getting eternal life if you continue on in darkness, because there can be no rapport between light and darkness, as we shall shortly see.
"In Him was Life"
What does John mean when he writes: In him [The Word] was life? I'm glad you didn't asked. This is where it helps to either have a language commentary around or know a little bit of the Greek language. John uses two words that are [unfortunately] translated life in the English language. There is the word bios which is used to refer to earthly life or biological life [thus the name biology for the science of living things]. 1 John 2.16 is a good example where bios is translated life. It reads: For all that is in the world —the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life [bios]—is not from the Father but is from the world. This is not the word that John uses when he says that in the Word was life.
John uses the word zoe which is also translated life in English. Zoe is a favorite word of John's; he uses it 36 times in his Gospel and it never means natural or biological life. It means real life or true life, something fundamentally different from biological life. It's the word that he uses when he tells Martha: I am the resurrection and the life [zoe]. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, so he obviously does not mean biological life. John uses the same word when he lays out the great purpose of the whole book: These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life [zoe] in his name. So when John uses zoe, he means resurrection life or eternal life.
What John means when he writes: In him was life is that in Christ the Eternal Word was resurrection life. In order that we don't miss this point, John emphasizes the word life in vs. 4. Oh...and in case you really don't get the point, zoe is the word that John uses in John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life [zoe].
Do you want eternal life? You're not going to get it by living [biossing] forever. You're going to get it by running to the source of eternal zoe. Christ the Eternal Word was not shy at all about saying that he alone of all men who have ever lived was the source of eternal life.
John uses the word zoe which is also translated life in English. Zoe is a favorite word of John's; he uses it 36 times in his Gospel and it never means natural or biological life. It means real life or true life, something fundamentally different from biological life. It's the word that he uses when he tells Martha: I am the resurrection and the life [zoe]. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, so he obviously does not mean biological life. John uses the same word when he lays out the great purpose of the whole book: These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life [zoe] in his name. So when John uses zoe, he means resurrection life or eternal life.
What John means when he writes: In him was life is that in Christ the Eternal Word was resurrection life. In order that we don't miss this point, John emphasizes the word life in vs. 4. Oh...and in case you really don't get the point, zoe is the word that John uses in John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life [zoe].
Do you want eternal life? You're not going to get it by living [biossing] forever. You're going to get it by running to the source of eternal zoe. Christ the Eternal Word was not shy at all about saying that he alone of all men who have ever lived was the source of eternal life.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
John: Christ as "The Word"
Why did John choose to represent Christ as "The Word" as in In the beginning was The Word? (Short answer: He was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but we are looking for the long answer).
The word "word" or "logos" in the original, has at least ten possible meanings in the Greek language depending on the context. It can mean, statement, speech, gospel, treatise, account, reason, word, event, appearance, or accusation, and of course here it refers to Christ. Why did John choose this word to reveal Christ? He could have just said, In the beginning was Christ, and Christ was with God, and Christ was God, but he didn't. He is trying to tell us something.
The United Bible Society language commentary on John points out that the word "logos" had a rich heritage both in the Jewish culture and in the Greek culture. For Greeks who were theists "logos" was the means by which God revealed himself or "spoke" to the world. For Greeks who were pantheists the Word was the principle that held the world together and at the same time endowed men with the wisdom for living.
For the Hebrews, "logos" had a rich meaning because that was how God had created the world. Here is a screenshot of Genesis 1 with "And God said" highlighted so you get a sense of how rich the word "logos" was to the Jews [This time courtesy of Accordance Bible Software - I'm kind of a Bible software junkie]:
God had created the world by speaking, by using words, so while the Jews' understanding of "logos" differed from the Greeks', it would have resonated with both type of people.
A couple of comments by commentators will help clarify:
The use of logos implies that John was endeavoring to bring out the full significance of the Incarnation to the Gentile world as well as to the Jewish people. He does not adopt the Greek concept in its entirety, but he uses this term to indicate that Jesus had universal rather than local significance and that he spoke with ultimate authority.
And:
So in using “the Word,” the Logos, John was speaking to both the Jewish and Greek worlds—those two widely divergent cultures. The Greeks were sophisticated, inquisitive, and philosophic; the Jews righteous, traditional, and struggling to be faithful to the Law. How amazing that John could share the Gospel narrative with these two cultures at the same time, using a single, simple concept that carried such profound meaning for both.
John was brilliant, wasn't he? I wonder from whence he gained that brilliance.
The word "word" or "logos" in the original, has at least ten possible meanings in the Greek language depending on the context. It can mean, statement, speech, gospel, treatise, account, reason, word, event, appearance, or accusation, and of course here it refers to Christ. Why did John choose this word to reveal Christ? He could have just said, In the beginning was Christ, and Christ was with God, and Christ was God, but he didn't. He is trying to tell us something.
The United Bible Society language commentary on John points out that the word "logos" had a rich heritage both in the Jewish culture and in the Greek culture. For Greeks who were theists "logos" was the means by which God revealed himself or "spoke" to the world. For Greeks who were pantheists the Word was the principle that held the world together and at the same time endowed men with the wisdom for living.
For the Hebrews, "logos" had a rich meaning because that was how God had created the world. Here is a screenshot of Genesis 1 with "And God said" highlighted so you get a sense of how rich the word "logos" was to the Jews [This time courtesy of Accordance Bible Software - I'm kind of a Bible software junkie]:
God had created the world by speaking, by using words, so while the Jews' understanding of "logos" differed from the Greeks', it would have resonated with both type of people.
A couple of comments by commentators will help clarify:
The use of logos implies that John was endeavoring to bring out the full significance of the Incarnation to the Gentile world as well as to the Jewish people. He does not adopt the Greek concept in its entirety, but he uses this term to indicate that Jesus had universal rather than local significance and that he spoke with ultimate authority.
And:
So in using “the Word,” the Logos, John was speaking to both the Jewish and Greek worlds—those two widely divergent cultures. The Greeks were sophisticated, inquisitive, and philosophic; the Jews righteous, traditional, and struggling to be faithful to the Law. How amazing that John could share the Gospel narrative with these two cultures at the same time, using a single, simple concept that carried such profound meaning for both.
John was brilliant, wasn't he? I wonder from whence he gained that brilliance.
John: Was he a Monotheist?
How do we understand John's statement that: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1.1)? Was John a monotheist? A polytheist? Is he introducing something new to Christianity here?
To get at the answer to this question one has to understand the cultural and religious milieu in which John wrote. John was a Jew and whatever else one can say about the religious positions of the Jews in Palestine at the time of Christ, they were fiercely monotheistic. In all of the archaeological digs in Israel, they have never discovered an idol in the time after the Jews came back from exile in Babylon. The exile had weaned that desire out of them. In addition, John lived in a time after the Maccabean Wars in which the Jews had fought again and again attempts to make them worship anything but God. So exasperated had the Romans become at the Jews' insistence that they would worship only their God, that they finally gave in and made the only religious exemption in their entire empire. Jews alone could worship their own God and not the emperor. They had paid for this right in much blood.
In addition all of the earliest Christian writings hold to one God. In coming to faith in Christ the Jews who had become Christians did not reject their faith in or understanding that God was one. Their understanding had been reshaped, not changed.
All that to say that John knew what he was doing here. He writes in such a way that we understand that God was one, and that Christ was God. He carefully constructs his words so that we see that Christ is a distinct personality from God, and yet he is God. Here is how Marvin Vincent puts it:
The Logos of John is the real, personal God (1:1), the Word, who was originally before the creation with God, and was God, one in essence and nature, yet personally distinct (1:1, 18); the revealer and interpreter of the hidden being of God; the reflection and visible image of God, and the organ of all His manifestations to the world.
So was John a monotheist? Yes, he was. Had his understanding of what that meant been changed by his interaction with Christ? Yes it had.
Here is how one commentator works out this truth:
John came from a people who were fiercely monotheistic. Their faith in one holy living God was no academic affair; it was a life and death matter which no amount of social pressure or cruel persecution could stamp out. So the confession, “the Word was God,” was a startling affirmation of faith that could only be made by one who had accepted the invitation of Jesus to “come and see” and had ended up beholding His glory, which could only have been the glory of “the only begotten of the Father.” John had moved beyond the monotheism of the Law into the rich wonder of the Incarnate Word’s being very God.
May we hold our faith and our understanding of who God is and who Christ is with the same commitment with which the early believers held it. May it be to us "a life and death matter which no amount of social pressure or cruel persecution" can stamp out.
To get at the answer to this question one has to understand the cultural and religious milieu in which John wrote. John was a Jew and whatever else one can say about the religious positions of the Jews in Palestine at the time of Christ, they were fiercely monotheistic. In all of the archaeological digs in Israel, they have never discovered an idol in the time after the Jews came back from exile in Babylon. The exile had weaned that desire out of them. In addition, John lived in a time after the Maccabean Wars in which the Jews had fought again and again attempts to make them worship anything but God. So exasperated had the Romans become at the Jews' insistence that they would worship only their God, that they finally gave in and made the only religious exemption in their entire empire. Jews alone could worship their own God and not the emperor. They had paid for this right in much blood.
In addition all of the earliest Christian writings hold to one God. In coming to faith in Christ the Jews who had become Christians did not reject their faith in or understanding that God was one. Their understanding had been reshaped, not changed.
All that to say that John knew what he was doing here. He writes in such a way that we understand that God was one, and that Christ was God. He carefully constructs his words so that we see that Christ is a distinct personality from God, and yet he is God. Here is how Marvin Vincent puts it:
The Logos of John is the real, personal God (1:1), the Word, who was originally before the creation with God, and was God, one in essence and nature, yet personally distinct (1:1, 18); the revealer and interpreter of the hidden being of God; the reflection and visible image of God, and the organ of all His manifestations to the world.
So was John a monotheist? Yes, he was. Had his understanding of what that meant been changed by his interaction with Christ? Yes it had.
Here is how one commentator works out this truth:
John came from a people who were fiercely monotheistic. Their faith in one holy living God was no academic affair; it was a life and death matter which no amount of social pressure or cruel persecution could stamp out. So the confession, “the Word was God,” was a startling affirmation of faith that could only be made by one who had accepted the invitation of Jesus to “come and see” and had ended up beholding His glory, which could only have been the glory of “the only begotten of the Father.” John had moved beyond the monotheism of the Law into the rich wonder of the Incarnate Word’s being very God.
May we hold our faith and our understanding of who God is and who Christ is with the same commitment with which the early believers held it. May it be to us "a life and death matter which no amount of social pressure or cruel persecution" can stamp out.
John: "In the Beginning Was"
If you asked someone what book of the Bible has the earliest reference in time, they would probably say Genesis. After all, it starts: In the beginning God. They would be wrong. The Gospel of John has the earliest reference in time because he begins with In the beginning was the Word. Creation doesn't happen until verse 3 in John and that is important.
Now for some grammar (I know you are jumping with joy). The verb "was" here is in the imperfect tense which focuses on continual existence in past time. So John is making a profoundly deep statement. The Word (which John will directly tell us is Christ in 1.14) existed before creation in eternity past with God. Indeed, John will use the verb "to be" very carefully in the prologue to denote an existence outside the bounds of time. We can contrast that with his use of the verb (to become) which denotes something that had "come to pass in space and time" (as one commentator puts it).
With the magic of Logos Bible software, I've thrown a visual filter on the text so you can see what I mean. Green is the verb "to be" (eimi in Greek) and orange is the verb "to become" (egeneto in the Greek). For one good example of how careful John is, notice the difference between verse 1 and vs. 14. In vs. 1, In the beginning was the Word - Eimi, to be, existence out of and before time. In vs. 14, however, And the Word became flesh - Egeneto, to become, existence in space and time.
Christ existed outside of space and time before creation he "was," but then he existed within space and time when he "became flesh."
Now for some grammar (I know you are jumping with joy). The verb "was" here is in the imperfect tense which focuses on continual existence in past time. So John is making a profoundly deep statement. The Word (which John will directly tell us is Christ in 1.14) existed before creation in eternity past with God. Indeed, John will use the verb "to be" very carefully in the prologue to denote an existence outside the bounds of time. We can contrast that with his use of the verb (to become) which denotes something that had "come to pass in space and time" (as one commentator puts it).
With the magic of Logos Bible software, I've thrown a visual filter on the text so you can see what I mean. Green is the verb "to be" (eimi in Greek) and orange is the verb "to become" (egeneto in the Greek). For one good example of how careful John is, notice the difference between verse 1 and vs. 14. In vs. 1, In the beginning was the Word - Eimi, to be, existence out of and before time. In vs. 14, however, And the Word became flesh - Egeneto, to become, existence in space and time.
Christ existed outside of space and time before creation he "was," but then he existed within space and time when he "became flesh."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)