1 John 1:5-10

[Deleted]

Nov 1, 2012 21:11:37 GMT -7 ryan said:

Okay, I'm sorry to keep beating this horse, but for me he just ain't dead yet!! ^_^.

So, the HOTI here is showing a further explanation? Isn't that what GAR does?

And when it says, "This is the message that we heard FROM HIM, (HOTI) God is light, etc...." Isn't the part that says "God is light...." THE message that they heard from Jesus? So wouldn't it be safe to say that "This message" IS "God is light.......". Does my question make sense? Why am I not getting this? ^_^

That's OK,
Gar gives the reason or tells why
Hoti is used to either explain further about something or for indirect discourse.

and yes the message IS lit: The God light is, and there is no darkness in Him at all.

I was actually saying that I thought it was indirect discourse. But John is either loosely quoting something that Jesus said or he is explaining further something that Jesus said.

On the side of explaining further, it would be that the message was God is light, and the further explanation would be that in Him is no darkness at all.

Either way, I don't think how hoti is being used in this case affects the meaning.

[Justin]

This is getting exciting - if we look at what John has to say about light in the Gospel of John we get an interesting picture of what he is saying. To say God is light is to emphatically say God is Jesus, couple that with the "that which was from the beginning" study and this opens up into an exciting picture that seems impossible to fully get your mind around... at least my mind.

[retzev]

Mark or anyone else from an earlier post to clarify. So "The God light is". We know God isn't light in and of itself because light does not have a definite article. If light did have a definite article than it would be just as Sabellianism teaches in John 1:1 that God was on earth and nowhere else by inserting a definite article into the text which is heresy. Secondly, light is in the nominative case and we know that the eimi verb rule takes a nominative case as its direct object?

[Deleted]

You are correct retzev. So my question to get us started on wrapping up verse 5 is, what exactly does the fact that there is no definite article for phos (light) tell us? As Justin and I discussed this weekend, the "natural" thing that most of us do is to do a search for the terms " God is light" to see where is it that John is pulling this from and can those searches tell us what he's talking about. But that is an English approach. It's not that it's wrong to do that in all cases, but when we find all that the NT and OT has to say about light, God and Christ, will that be what this verse is talking about? This is where many do get it wrong. They will just start applying those facts to this verse as if they go together and it will sound "right" because they will be talking about God and light. But is that what this verse is saying? A better, more accurate approach would be to FIRST ask ourselves if there is anything in the grammar and syntax of John's writing that will narrow the search options.

As already discussed, the "hoti" explains what the message is. There does not have to be any other place in the bible where the phrase "God is light" is found because John is saying it here and it is clear. Second, as you point out, there is no definite article. So what does that tell us? You said what it dosen't tell us. But by leaving the article out, John IS saying that the nature and quality of The God (ho Theos) is light. That is the exact message that they got from Jesus. That God the Father, in His nature is light. So even though we would have found search verses like Jesus saying " I am the Light of the world", that does not mean that this verse is saying that Jesus and God are one (even thought that is true). This verse is saying that God the Father's nature is light. Period. I hope that's a good example of what I mean when I say that the Greek syntax and grammar limit where our imaginations can go.

The second part of the verse tells us that His nature and quality is Light, so much so that in Him there is no darkness. The word "none" at the end is a compound word of "ou" (not) + "de" (and) + eis (one). It is a nominative, feminine, singular adjective modifying darkness. A good Eglishizing of this word would be "not even one bit". God's very nature or quality is light to the extent that there is not even one bit of darkness in Him. That is the message that they heard from Jesus about the Father.

[Deleted]

Now that I understand what John has said - and not said in verse 5, I might begin to ask WHY has he said it?

Here are some things to consider. There are some 2 dozen statements in this book regarding the condition, characteristic and confirmation of a believer. That is really something especially given the small size of the letter. There are also about a dozen contrasts given. We know from the introduction background, that this letter was written to combat Gnosticism of which one form, retzev pointed out to be Sabellianism. That is to say that people had come into the church saying that God was giving them special knowledge about Himself and attacking the humanity of Jesus' deity. And there was also Libertines who believed all matter, including flesh, was evil already and therefore lived a "anything goes" lifestyle. There was no sin, no need for forgiveness, and nothing that has been created came from a good God, but came from evil matter. Why is John talking about God's light and then going to have so many statement/contrast presentations? Iv'e been thinking about these things since I finished verse 5 and asking myself, why plop the message that God's very nature is light at the beginning of the letter seemingly stranded all by itself. There doesn't seem to be anything from the English immediately before this statement or directly after it to shed light (sorry :0) on what he's talking about. But then this type of analogy came to my mind. Please bare with me, as I may be a king of analogies, I am definitely not a king of good analogies.

We might say that a store is a perfect place to store and buy food. We might classify that store as a grocery market and say that any food that comes out of that market is good. But in reality, there are places in that store where food can spoil or mold or dry out or get waterlogged or bug infested. Even though it is a grocery store built to keep food good, we can get home, and unpack both good and rotten food.

John has laid a foundational statement that God's very nature is light to the extent that in Him there is not even one bit of darkness. Starting with verse 6, we are going to begin working on these condition, characteristic and confirmation statements and the contrast clauses. As we do, we will start to see how important this statement in verse 5 is as a foundational truth.

[Justin]

This is good stuff; important to remember grammar dictating definition AND looking at the whole before analyzing the pieces. If we make the mistake I did and look at each phrase on it's own and assume priority then we lose what it being said and what is being defined by the $oti clause.

As you said

mark said:

That is the message that they heard from Jesus about the Father.

This seems to make sense but grammatically how do we decide that au;tou; refers to Jesus and not God? Is it again proximity; Jesus being the nearest antecedent?

[retzev]

Once we have the correct context within a section narrowing down what the writers message is in context of grammar and syntax, I would think that understanding light in reference to the deity of God and Jesus in general from the ot-nt would be greatly beneficial for our understanding of the Lord and would still be applicable to this section?

[Deleted]

Dec 4, 2012 7:21:51 GMT -7 Justin said:

This is good stuff; important to remember grammar dictating definition ...

As you said

mark said:

That is the message that they heard from Jesus about the Father.

This seems to make sense but grammatically how do we decide that au;tou; refers to Jesus and not God? Is it again proximity; Jesus being the nearest antecedent?

2things here. The difference between what is called unaffected definition and affected meaning by the grammar and syntax is extremely important to be clear on so that people don't get confussed. "Unaffected" is the word defined without any context. It's the first gloss in the dictionary. Affected MEANING is when the word is used in it's context. Those are the many following meanings in the dictionary. Though a word has one definition, that definition has many "tweaked" meanings because of the various contexts in which it is used. So just to make sure we are consistant in how we communicate here, it may have been better to have said... "it's important to remember grammar dictating" MEANING. The definition of phos/light is one thing, but when used as a predicate nominative without an article, it refers to God's Nature.

Now as far as the personal pronoun "Him". The noun can come before the pronoun and is called the antecedent, or it can come after and be called the postcedent. I only point this out to say you shouldn't rule out that the pronoun sometimes (way less than anti) refers to a noun coming after it. Was there a proximity rule mentioned in our classes? If so I missed it or have forgotten, but although that would make it easier, it cannot ever undo context. The rule we learned in beginning Greek class was that the pronoun will match it's antecedent/postcedent in number and gender. In first John there are two singular masculine nouns in verse 4 - The Father and His Son Jesus Christ, and one after in verse 5. The context from verse 1 has all been focused on the Son. It was the "what" that was in the Son's life that was manifested and they experienced. It was the Son who they heard and proclaim. There is nothing in the context that provides a shift from the message they heard from the Son's life in verses 1-3 to the message heard and and proclaimed in verse verse 5. I suspect that is the very reason that the paragraph starts with kai. The shift in pronouns happens later in verse 5 where the text begins to use the singular masculine personal pronouns for the anticedent being the Father: no darkness in Him, fellowship with Him, He is in the light, and His Son Jesus Christ cleanses...

[Deleted]

Dec 4, 2012 10:40:08 GMT -7 retzev said:

Once we have the correct context within a section narrowing down what the writers message is in context of grammar and syntax, I would think that understanding light in reference to the deity of God and Jesus in general from the ot-nt would be greatly beneficial for our understanding of the Lord and would still be applicable to this section?

So yes, this is exactly the fruit that comes from having FIRST broken down the verses into grammar (part of speech, tense, mood etc) and how the arrangement of the words relate words to each other (syntax) and affect meaning. By doing this first, it has told us that we are now talking specifically about the nature of God. If there is anything in the OT-NT that helps us to understand the Nature of God being light then it should be considered, but most important is how the rest of the letter relates to that main statement.

[Justin]

Ok, I'm stuck on light still. If God's nature is light then what is light? Especially since it says in verse 7 that He is IN THE LIGHT (e;n tw: fpti;). We have decided already that this section does not say God is the light; so who or what is it? Are these even valid questions at this juncture or dare I read on and see what unfolds?

Should we go back to previous writings about light and/or rely on word definitions? It occurs to me that if God's nature is light, and we should (subjunctive ) be walking in the light, and He is already in the light - the definition of light is very important. As well as darkness for that matter...

[Deleted]

Dec 7, 2012 7:30:34 GMT -7 Justin said:

Ok, I'm stuck on light still. If God's nature is light then what is light? Especially since it says in verse 7 that He is IN THE LIGHT (e;n tw: fpti;). We have decided already that this section does not say God is the light; so who or what is it? Are these even valid questions at this juncture or dare I read on and see what unfolds?

This is what my approach is.
1. Read the entire book to get an overview
2. Establish grammar and syntax by diagramming sentence by sentence
3. Pencil in base definition gloss for each word. - When I don't have any more question with steps 1-3, I can move on to step 4
4. Establish meaning of each word by it's use in context while keeping my other eye on both the base gloss and how the word is used elsewhere. I look at similar contexts, but also look at all uses for all contexts that might show contrast.
5. Pray about it, think about it while resisting a rush to judgement attitude.

For a word like this, I take a look at all lexicons I have. I established a base definition of light being light as opposed to darkness. Because John says he heard this message from Jesus, I have searched for verses that talk about God and light in the NT and would try to determine which (if any) speak specifically to the quality of God's nature. That might help to give more color to the base definition. I have a few that I am looking at now.
Acts 26:18-
"...to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God..."
2Corinthians 4:6-
"For God, who said, “ Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."
Revelation 22:5-
And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever.

At this point, that is all I can do with verse 5. We just don't have enough information to give more meaning yet.

Dec 7, 2012 7:30:34 GMT -7 Justin said:

Should we go back to previous writings about light and/or rely on word definitions? It occurs to me that if God's nature is light, and we should (subjunctive ) be walking in the light, and He is already in the light - the definition of light is very important. As well as darkness for that matter...

Whether it is light as in sunlight/daylight, or firelight, or mental illumination, or truth vs lie, good vs. evil or all of these as a spiritual realm of Light is not known yet. If this was the only statement in a 5 verse book, I would need to rely more on the OT etc for any possible meaning. But knowing that there is the rest of the book yet to come, I just leave the gloss definition hanging while we move on to the next verses to see what they will add as far as a "meaning". I would also be taking a look at how "light" is represented by the Gnostics since I know from our introduction and the overview reading that Gnostic belief is what this book is combating. I am reading through The Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second Centuries by Henry Mansel. It has already been fruitful for understanding the Gnostic view of the "First Principle", which is the Absolute Good and light compared to the "Creator" who is responsible for creating all that is evil and all matter in their view is evil because it has less than perfect qualities like decay, sickness, and death.

[Deleted]

So at this point, I would like to introduce a few things. We have talked about why the Greek of verse 5 limits any conclusion about "Light" to the area of John saying that he's only addressing God's nature.

It was also mentioned in the introduction to 1John that this letter was written to combat Gnosticism (thanks Ryan). Some might wonder how do we know this? It comes from the AD182-188 writings of the Church Father Irenaeus in his The Five Books against Heresies. He lived at the same time as those who, along with himself, took over the church leadership positions immediately following the Apostles deaths. They were experiencing first hand, the very gnostic heresies that John is writing about! The Gnostics ripped off concepts from the Old Testament, Indian religion and asian religion, along with Plato's work in Philosophy and created a complex intellectual system that only they could know how to explain. What made it a big deal, was that they perverted the Bible's truth about redemption. In the same way that cults do today, they used the same terms and concepts of the Bible, but perverted it's meaning and twisting it's definitions about who God is and who man is, and how man is redeemed. That is where it crossed over from just another imagined philosophy to a Heresy that the writers of the New Testament were led to defend against. It is difficult, but by understanding the basics of those Gnostic beliefs, we find the meaning of why John said what he said regarding light as well as sin, as well as fellowship with God, etc. As an example:

A (over simplified here) basic root of Gnostic belief said that God (who they called the First Principle) is light, and was so pure that He could not have anything to do with creating creation because creation is less than perfect. It decays, dies, and in every way is not perfect. Therefore, there must have been another, creator with the power to create, and yet separate from this First Principle. Not only that, but that because this creator created something that was not perfect, the creator must not be perfect. Therefore the creator must have come into existence in some darkness that is not in the light of the First Principle and created the material universe in a dark corner or spot somewhere outside of the light of the First Principle. By reading through those references I put in the completed section of 1John about Gnosticism, you will discover what they said about all the other areas that John will tackle. When Irenaeus described it, here is what he said in his own words regarding the light of Gnosticism.

"Their talk also about shadow and vacuity, in which they maintain that the creation with which we are concerned was formed, will be brought to nothing, if the things referred to were created within the territory which is contained by the Father. For if they hold that the light of their Father is such that it fills all things which are inside of Him, and illuminates them all, how can any vacuum or shadow possibly exist within that territory which is contained by the Pleroma, and by the light of the Father? For, in that case, it behoves them to point out some place within the Propator, or within the Pleroma, which is not illuminated, nor kept possession of by any one, and in which either the angels or the Demiurge formed whatever they pleased. Nor will it be a small amount of space in which such and so great a creation can be conceived of as having been formed. There will therefore be an absolute necessity that, within the Pleroma, or within the Father of whom they speak, they should conceive(1) of some place, void, formless, and full of darkness, in which those things were formed which have been formed. By such a supposition, however, the light of their Father would incur a reproach, as if He could not illuminate and fill those things which are within Himself. Thus, then, when they maintain that these things were the fruit of defect and the work of error, they do moreover introduce defect and error within the Pleroma, and into the bosom of the Father."

So when John said "God is light and in Him there is not one bit of darkness", we now understand why he is addressing the very nature of God. John was not led to point out, nor name the Gnostic heresy, and yet was led to present the truth because of the pervasive and insidious lie that was understood by the reader. In the same way, I don't think anyone should put down their bibles and embark on a journey to become an expert on all the forms of Gnostic belief, New Age belief, Cultic belief etc. But I do think we should understand just enough to know how to defend the truth if the season should require it and in a way that always points to the Glory of our God.

So as we go on in John's defense against Gnosticism, we will have to point out why he is saying what he is saying, but should also, more importantly, do it to show that there is but One God: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit of the Bible's presentation.

[Justin]

Well, Grammatically I've gone as far as I am able in vs. 5-7. I've read some commentaries that raise some interesting (but perhaps irrelevant) questions about things like the word used for proclaim here vs other places but since these are not my own observations I'll avoid them here. The only things I have left looming at this time are as follows:
1. In vs. 5, does ajkhkovamen relate to listen and understand? Because it's ajkouvw does that prevent any observational understanding and only audible?

2. Still waiting for LIGHT and DARKNESS to unfold. The "realm" discussion on Saturday was very helpful.

3. I think the emphatic double negative is interesting in vs. 5 and sheds some more light on John's goal in writing the letter.

4. The ia ending occurs enough times as a Nominative Feminine Singular that I thought it was missing from my article ending chart.

5. Clauses are huge... must get more better knowing.

6. Verse 6 says "IF we should SAY we have fellowship with HIM but we may be living/walking in darkness we are lying." and verse 7 says "IF we are living/walking in the light as He is in the light then we ARE having fellowship with ONE ANOTHER..." Is this an example of a specific issue John is addressing? Those who claim to have fellowship with Him vs those who have fellowship with one another? Is the fellowship with one another evidence on it's own that we are walking in the light?

7. In vs. 7 it says Jesus Christ THE Son (of Him), I presume this is apposition? I base this on matching gender/number/case and the definite article tou preceding son. I'm not sure how to handle the aujtou "of Him" is it: Jesus Christ = the son of Him (Genitives tying son and of Him together)?

[Deleted]

I can give you my thoughts on some of these questions now.

Dec 18, 2012 6:30:32 GMT -7 Justin said:

4. The ia ending occurs enough times as a Nominative Feminine Singular that I thought it was missing from my article ending chart.

Well then there is something that you didn’t expect to learn!

Dec 18, 2012 6:30:32 GMT -7 Justin said:

6. Verse 6 says "IF we should SAY we have fellowship with HIM but we may be living/walking in darkness we are lying." and verse 7 says "IF we are living/walking in the light as He is in the light then we ARE having fellowship with ONE ANOTHER..." Is this an example of a specific issue John is addressing? Those who claim to have fellowship with Him vs those who have fellowship with one another?

I see four things regarding specific issues. (there may be more)
-First is the “claim” itself that is accompanied by a “contrary manner of living”.
-Second, is the subjunctive hypothetical of - even if it were an Apostle making this claim, he lies, meaning the status of the person making the claim does not change the result.
-Third, is the use of “as” in verse 7. this is a comparative particle and qualifies the conduct to be not one of my opinion, but my conduct has to line up with “as he is in the light”. That is not horizontal subjective human opinion, that is a Spiritual relational reality.
-Fourth, are the indicatives (statements of facts) of verse 7. We ARE presently having fellowship and we ARE presently being cleansed from every sin.

Dec 18, 2012 6:30:32 GMT -7 Justin said:

Is the fellowship with one another evidence on it's own that we are walking in the light?

I think this is where the comments from 1 John 1:5-7 Technical Questions about the apodosis and protasis come into play. What your really asking is can we put the “IF” on the apodosis? That is, IF we are having fellowship with one another, then we are in the light. That is what Wallace says you cannot do with the conditional clause. You cannot reverse the intended meaning. The only conditional part is the protasis- the part of -if we should be walking in the light.

First, I think it’s important to remember what was said about “fellowship” in the word definitions for verse 3. Fellowship is literally the “commonness”. Elaborating on that a bit, it is the commonness of the personal relationship between the born again believer and Christ. It is the interaction of the Spirit of Christ in and amongst the believers. Jesus has put His Spirit into the believer (Rom 8:9) signifying salvation. And that presence of His Spirit, is the commonness between all believers to each other and all believers to Christ. Having His Spirit in us means that we are always with Him and He with us. Because of that, we are always exposed to the light as John said in John 1:4 “In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.”

Now, we need to see that the conditional statement can be taken two ways at first blush. Because of the looseness of English, some assume it’s saying WHEN a person is walking. That is to say that if “today” they are walking in the light.. but then “in the morning” maybe we could be walking in darkness, and then believing the verse to say that you make yourself walk a certain way type of a presentation. But the presentation has nothing to do with timing. The presentation is that if we “should be [the ones] walking” in the light as He is in the light, then we ARE having fellowship... In other words, you cannot separate the to. When the first condition is met, the result is a factual certainty. Now, “walking in darkness” is what a person does who is lost, without hope, and does not have the light of God living in them. They are in bondage to sin and under the dominion of Satan. They are powerless to walk in the light. “Walking in the light” is what a person does because the power of God has loosed them from the bondage of sin and Satan. The saved believer now has the light of God is living in them. In John 12:46 John quotes Jesus saying “ I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness. In Acts 26:18 Jesus appeared to Saul of Tarsus on the Damascus road and told him that He would appoint him a minister in order to “to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.” Paul, in Ephesians chapters 2, explains that our very minds, which we use to make earthly decisions about our manner of living, is either being energized by the power of air if we are lost, or the power of God if we are saved. So, because of our position in Christ, fellowship is between people who are in a particular condition of salvation and that condition manifests itself in their manner of living. But then as far as earthly living goes, a saved believer who has been loosed from the power of sin and the dominion of darkness, and is being energized in the mind by God to make decisions in accordance with the light, will have that habit of life. The only things that trips up saved believers are the oppression of the Enemy and our flesh. But even then, we are still in the light, in the presence of God Spiritually and walking exposed to the light. Although there are points of failure, the habit of life should reflect a walk in accordance with The Light and not the darkness. One who is not saved can fake a manner of living to appear religious and can “fake” a type of human fellowship, but one cannot “fake” the presence of the light of Christ in them, nor can they “fake” being freed from the bondage and dominion of Satan. So this verse is using the condition of the being the ones walking in the light to meet the guaranteed conclusion of having biblical fellowship.

Dec 18, 2012 6:30:32 GMT -7 Justin said:

7. In vs. 7 it says Jesus Christ THE Son (of Him), I presume this is apposition? I base this on matching gender/number/case and the definite article tou preceding son. I'm not sure how to handle the aujtou "of Him" is it: Jesus Christ = the son of Him (Genitives tying son and of Him together)?

You are correct about the apposition. Jesus Christ and The Son are in apposition. You are correct that the reason why is that they are both Genitive, Masculine, Singular NOUNS. But “of him” is a genitive PRONOUN and therefore, technically is only “working off of” “Son”. In grammar lingo, The definite article modifies the noun “son” and the pronoun modifies the noun “Son”.

[Justin]

-Second, is the subjunctive hypothetical of - even if it were an Apostle making this claim, he lies, meaning the status of the person making the claim does not change the result.

How are you coming to this conclusion? Is this based on the 1 person verbs? Not sure how this pertains to a status of the one making the claim.