"The light" in the prologue

[B Tucker]

I think my following questions have fairly obvious answers to most, but just want to confirm since I'm still learnnig Greek at a very basic level, so bear with me.

In verse 9- 10 the apostle writes,

The true light ( τὸ φῶς) that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him (αὐτοῦ), the world did not recognize him (αὐτὸν).

Are the pronouns in red above referring to τὸ φῶς? It will help me to determine if τὸ φῶς is just another way of saying Logos or whether τὸ φῶς is light as in gnosis, or as some even suggest that it is the Father.

Same with verse 5,

The light ( τὸ φῶς) shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it (αὐτὸ).

References if possible be much appreciated.

Thanks,

[John Reece]

Are the pronouns in red above referring to τὸ φῶς?

Yes.

Same with verse 5, References if possible be much appreciated

From The Gospel According to John (Pillar; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), by D. A. Carson:

5. This verse is a masterpiece of planned ambiguity. If a Hellenistic, or for that matter even a pagan Greek, read through the opening verses to this point, and had no personal experience of Christianity, he or she might well take verse 5 to refer exclusively to creation, without moral overtones. Light and darkness are not simply opposites; darkness is nothing other than the absence of light. At the first creation, 'darkness was over the surface of the deep' (Gn. 1:2) until God said, 'Let there be light' (Gn. 1:3). At no time other than creation could it more appropriately be said, The light shines in the darkness. Precisely because John is talking about creation, and is not describing a dualist universe in which darkness and light, goodness and evil, are matched opposites, he can describe the victory of the light: the darkness did not overcome it (as the verb katelaben can be translated). This understanding of verse 5 is in line with those who say that the Prologue makes no mention of the incarnation or even of the personal, saving revelation of the Word, until verse 14.

But any reader who had entered into sustained dialogue with Christians, and, more importantly, any reader who had read through this Gospel once and was now re-reading it, could not fail to see in verse 5 an anticipation of the light/darkness duality that dominates much of the rest of the book. The 'darkness' in John is not only absence of light, but positive evil (cf. 3:19; 8:12; 12:35, 46; 1 Jn. 1:5, 6; 2:8, 9, 11); the light is not only revelation bound up with creation, but with salvation. Apart from the light brought by the Messiah, the incarnate Word, people love darkness because their deeds are evil (3:19), and when the light does put in an appearance, they hate it, because they do not want their deeds to be exposed (3:20). In fact, wherever it is true that the light shines in the darkness, it is also true that the darkness has not understood it (taking katelaben as in the NIV). Reading verse 5 in this way anticipates the rejection theme that becomes explicit in verses 10-11. Alternatively, even if katelaben means something like 'did not overcome it' (...), it is quite possible that John, subtle writer that he is, wants his readers to see in the Word both the light of creation and the light of the redemption the Word brings in his incarnation.

[B Tucker]

Hi John Reece,

Yes.

Thanks J.R.

From The Gospel According to John (Pillar; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), by D. A. Carson:

5. This verse is a masterpiece of planned ambiguity. If a Hellenistic, or for that matter even a pagan Greek, read through the opening verses to this point, and had no personal experience of Christianity, he or she might well take verse 5 to refer exclusively to creation, without moral overtones. Light and darkness are not simply opposites; darkness is nothing other than the absence of light. At the first creation, 'darkness was over the surface of the deep' (Gn. 1:2) until God said, 'Let there be light' (Gn. 1:3). At no time other than creation could it more appropriately be said, The light shines in the darkness. Precisely because John is talking about creation, and is not describing a dualist universe in which darkness and light, goodness and evil, are matched opposites, he can describe the victory of the light: the darkness did not overcome it (as the verb katelaben can be translated). This understanding of verse 5 is in line with those who say that the Prologue makes no mention of the incarnation or even of the personal, saving revelation of the Word, until verse 14.

But any reader who had entered into sustained dialogue with Christians, and, more importantly, any reader who had read through this Gospel once and was now re-reading it, could not fail to see in verse 5 an anticipation of the light/darkness duality that dominates much of the rest of the book. The 'darkness' in John is not only absence of light, but positive evil (cf. 3:19; 8:12; 12:35, 46; 1 Jn. 1:5, 6; 2:8, 9, 11); the light is not only revelation bound up with creation, but with salvation. Apart from the light brought by the Messiah, the incarnate Word, people love darkness because their deeds are evil (3:19), and when the light does put in an appearance, they hate it, because they do not want their deeds to be exposed (3:20). In fact, wherever it is true that the light shines in the darkness, it is also true that the darkness has not understood it (taking katelaben as in the NIV). Reading verse 5 in this way anticipates the rejection theme that becomes explicit in verses 10-11. Alternatively, even if katelaben means something like 'did not overcome it' (...), it is quite possible that John, subtle writer that he is, wants his readers to see in the Word both the light of creation and the light of the redemption the Word brings in his incarnation.

[/font][/size]

Just to be clear, is the pronoun in verse 5 also referring to the light IYO ? If I'm reading the source correctly, the correct answer is "yes" ?

Thanks kindly for your response

[BookerG]

Just to clarify, auto in verse 5 is neuter. The antecedent is the neuter light.

In verse 10, autou could be masculine or neuter, referring either to the light or to a person, but auton is masculine. The world did not know “him.” However, there is no other antecedent for “him.” It must refer to the light, but it must be saying that the light is a person. That was hinted at already in verse 8 when John testified that he, “that one,” masculine, was not the light, neuter. Although the word form for light is neuter, he hints (but doesn’t guarantee) that “the light” is a person. (Note that the fact that light is neuter does not imply it is an “it.” It’s just the grammatical wordform.. And the fact that the pronouns are sometimes neuter does not imply that it is impersonal; they just take the same gender as the noun to help the reader identify their antecedent. Even though English would never call Jesus an “it” even when we name him “the Light” or “the Door” or “the Rock,” he’s still a “he,” Greek would have no problem calling him an “it.” But it will switch to a “he” as soon as the neuter antecedent is no longer necessary.)

In verse 11 it is made explicit. “Him.” So you are correct, all of these pronouns refer to the light. But some make it clear that the light is a person.

[B Tucker]

Hi BookerG,

Thanks for your thoughts. Like J.R., you seem to know what you're talking about.

Just to clarify, auto in verse 5 is neuter. The antecedent is the neuter light.

Yes, I'm inclined to this understanding but am exploring other possibilities however dim. Can there be any other antecedent to auto in verse 5 ? Also, must τὸ φῶς in verse five be the Logos or is there a chance for it meaning something/someone else ?

In verse 10, autou could be masculine or neuter, referring either to the light or to a person, but auton is masculine.

Yes.

The world did not know “him.” However, there is no other antecedent for “him.” It must refer to the light, but it must be saying that the light is a person.

Yes, I'm struggling with this a little. Auton ( αὐτὸν) is masculine but τὸ φῶς is a grammatically neuter noun. Can a neuter noun be the antecedent of a masculine pronoun ?

That was hinted at already in verse 8 when John testified that he, “that one,” masculine, was not the light, neuter. Although the word form for light is neuter, he hints (but doesn’t guarantee) that “the light” is a person.

Yes ! "That one" is a reference to John the Baptist, hence the personal pronoun.

(Note that the fact that light is neuter does not imply it is an “it.” It’s just the grammatical wordform.. And the fact that the pronouns are sometimes neuter does not imply that it is impersonal; they just take the same gender as the noun to help the reader identify their antecedent. Even though English would never call Jesus an “it” even when we name him “the Light” or “the Door” or “the Rock,” he’s still a “he,” Greek would have no problem calling him an “it.” But it will switch to a “he” as soon as the neuter antecedent is no longer necessary.)

Ah, is this what is referred to in Greek as constructio ad sensum ? Is this what's going on in verses 9 and 10 when a masculine pronoun (αὐτὸν) refers to a neuter noun (τὸ φῶς) ?

In verse 11 it is made explicit. “Him.” So you are correct, all of these pronouns refer to the light. But some make it clear that the light is a person.

Thanks Booker for these excellent thoughts. I'm struggling somewhat with φῶς in verse 4. This is the only place in the prologue where I don't think "light" is a reference to Logos but it means "the light of all mankind." What are your thoughts..?

Peace in Christ,

[BookerG]

Let me take your last question first:

quote: “in verse 4. This is the only place in the prologue where I don't think "light" is a reference to Logos but it means "the light of all mankind." What are your thoughts..?”

You may be overthinking it to suppose that “light” can only have one very specific and consistent significance. In verse 4, “light” is descriptive. In verses 9 and following, “light” is personified; It is a person who comes, who has a name, and who is the Son of God. Between verses 4 and 9, we are gradually led from descriptive light to personified light.

It starts out merely descriptive. It is merely telling us that the life in Christ enlightens the world. “In him was life, and that life was the light of men.” ‘Him’ means the Logos. Life was in him; that is, both the essence and source of true life are a part of his nature. That life is light-giving. Since light is descriptive of life, and life is part of the nature of the Logos, light is descriptive as part of the nature of the Logos.

“The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.” Here the descriptive sense of light as an attribute of the Logos (not yet Logos personified), stands in for truth as an attribute of the Logos. Darkness, symbolically, is an attribute of unbelief and evil. John sets up the contrast and the battle between light and dark.
So in verse 5, I’d say “the light” is still not specifically the Logos, but the truth as an attribute of the Logos.
(and to answer another question, yes, the antecedent of auto must be the light.)

Verse 7 is where we begin to transition: “He (John) came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.” John came both as a witness to the truth, and specifically as a witness of Christ, the Logos made flesh, the light of the world.” He still doesn’t specifically tell us the light is a person, but suggests that if you listen to John, you’ll know who or what the light is.

In verse 8 we’re told John was not the light. The natural question to ask is, “Then who is?” So now the light is a who.

In verse 9, “The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.” Here’s a transition, because this verse is true whether you interpret it the same as verse 5 (that is, to say that the enlightenment of truth was coming into the world), or you interpret it as a person, who was born, came into the world to live.

Then verse 10 makes the transition complete. We’re told the world was made through him. It was made through the Logos. So now we’re not just talking about an attribute of the Logos, the Light is the Logos. And then in verse 11, he stops using the neuter pronoun and starts saying, "him."

[BookerG]

The one significant question I missed was the switch to masculine pronoun in verse 10. I think the reason for the pronoun switch at this point is that he hasn't mentioned to phws since the beginning of verse 9. That's a long ways away. In between, and much closer, is the allusion to ho logos (through whom all things were made). So by the end of verse 10, the pronoun is attracted to the gender of both the masculine noun Logos, and his identity as a human being that will be the subject of the following verses, making it most natural to use a masculine pronoun.

[B Tucker]

Let me take your last question first:

quote: “in verse 4. This is the only place in the prologue where I don't think "light" is a reference to Logos but it means "the light of all mankind." What are your thoughts..?”

You may be overthinking it to suppose that “light” can only have one very specific and consistent significance. In verse 4, “light” is descriptive. In verses 9 and following, “light” is personified; It is a person who comes, who has a name, and who is the Son of God. Between verses 4 and 9, we are gradually led from descriptive light to personified light.

It starts out merely descriptive. It is merely telling us that the life in Christ enlightens the world. “In him was life, and that life was the light of men.” ‘Him’ means the Logos. Life was in him; that is, both the essence and source of true life are a part of his nature. That life is light-giving. Since light is descriptive of life, and life is part of the nature of the Logos, light is descriptive as part of the nature of the Logos.

“The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.” Here the descriptive sense of light as an attribute of the Logos (not yet Logos personified), stands in for truth as an attribute of the Logos. Darkness, symbolically, is an attribute of unbelief and evil. John sets up the contrast and the battle between light and dark.
So in verse 5, I’d say “the light” is still not specifically the Logos, but the truth as an attribute of the Logos.
(and to answer another question, yes, the antecedent of auto must be the light.)

Verse 7 is where we begin to transition: “He (John) came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.” John came both as a witness to the truth, and specifically as a witness of Christ, the Logos made flesh, the light of the world.” He still doesn’t specifically tell us the light is a person, but suggests that if you listen to John, you’ll know who or what the light is.

In verse 8 we’re told John was not the light. The natural question to ask is, “Then who is?” So now the light is a who.

In verse 9, “The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.” Here’s a transition, because this verse is true whether you interpret it the same as verse 5 (that is, to say that the enlightenment of truth was coming into the world), or you interpret it as a person, who was born, came into the world to live.

Then verse 10 makes the transition complete. We’re told the world was made through him. It was made through the Logos. So now we’re not just talking about an attribute of the Logos, the Light is the Logos. And then in verse 11, he stops using the neuter pronoun and starts saying, "him."

Good thoughts... thanks

[B Tucker]

Hi Booker,

The one significant question I missed was the switch to masculine pronoun in verse 10. I think the reason for the pronoun switch at this point is that he hasn't mentioned to phws since the beginning of verse 9. That's a long ways away. In between, and much closer, is the allusion to ho logos (through whom all things were made). So by the end of verse 10, the pronoun is attracted to the gender of both the masculine noun Logos, and his identity as a human being that will be the subject of the following verses, making it most natural to use a masculine pronoun.

But since this masculine pronoun in verse 10 is referring to a neuter noun (τὸ φῶς) in verse 9, the grammatical rule in view here is constructio ad sensum. Correct? I prefer to be able to supprot my position with concrete rules. I did some quick reading on the subject:

http://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/wr..._ad_sensum.pdf

D. Constructio ad sensum means without following any fixed rules was very widespread in Greek from early times and is found in the NT as in the papyri.
E. Under constructio ad sensum the natural gender of the antecedent rather than its grammatical gender emerges.
F. The number of the relative pronoun is determined by the sense of the passage.

Gramatically this is exactly what's going on , and I'm now convinced that the masculine pronoun in verse 10 must refer to the grammatically neuter light in verse 9. Am I on the right track ?

[BookerG]

Yes, you are correct about the constructio ad sensum (and I should have said that). There are a few factors that make it more likely to be used.
Ambiguity: if there are several words that could be the antecedent, grammatical gender strictness becomes more important. (Not a problem in this case).
Distance: the farther you are from the antecedent, the less likely it is that grammatical wordform gender will outweigh a natural ad sensum gender. And if there is another word, or thought, describing the antecedent that is closer (maybe even coming after the pronoun), the pronoun can be ‘attracted’ to the new gender (even though that word is not technically the antecedent of the pronoun).
Multiple words used for the same person or thing: As soon as John makes it clear that Jesus is both the light (neuter) and the Logos (masculine), he is more likely to choose the one that is ad sensum (unless he really wants to keep using the light analogy).

[John Reece]

The more I think about it, the more I think the pronouns in question represent ὁ λόγος, the primary subject of John 1:1-18 ― in which context the term τὸ φῶς is secondary to ὁ λόγος and is one and the same as ὁ λόγος, which is identified as Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ at the end of the pericope.

[B Tucker]

Yes, you are correct about the constructio ad sensum (and I should have said that). There are a few factors that make it more likely to be used.
Ambiguity: if there are several words that could be the antecedent, grammatical gender strictness becomes more important. (Not a problem in this case).
Distance: the farther you are from the antecedent, the less likely it is that grammatical wordform gender will outweigh a natural ad sensum gender. And if there is another word, or thought, describing the antecedent that is closer (maybe even coming after the pronoun), the pronoun can be ‘attracted’ to the new gender (even though that word is not technically the antecedent of the pronoun).
Multiple words used for the same person or thing: As soon as John makes it clear that Jesus is both the light (neuter) and the Logos (masculine), he is more likely to choose the one that is ad sensum (unless he really wants to keep using the light analogy).

Thanks much, I learnt alot. May I ask about your Greek credentials ?..... Back to John 1:4 for a moment,

η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων

Someone argued that since both light and life "are articular," that you have "a convertible proposition here." They said that "it could be read and the life was the light of man or it could be read and the light was the life of man."


That didn't sound right to me at all. Do they even have a correct grasp of what a convertible proposition is ?

[BookerG]

My credentials would be 7 years of Greek and 5 of Hebrew back in my college and seminary days, followed by 25 years of self-study (although I have to admit the study has waxed and waned over the years).

As for the convertible proposition. I think they got it partially right, but applied it wrong.
It is right in that “the life” and “the light” are on equal footing. There is only one light, and there is only one life, and they both refer to the same one Logos. So you could say the life was the light, or the light was the life, and both would be true. Except:
That only tells you that the referent is one and the same. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that their relationship to their respective prepositional phrases must be the same.

Here’s a convertible proposition:
Bob is the son of Fred. It’s convertible, so I can say, the son of Fred is Bob. But I can’t necessarily say “the son is Bob of Fred.”
So it doesn’t automatically follow that just because the life was the light of men that the light was the life of men. A proper conversion would have been, “The light of men was the life.”

And even though they both have the Logos as their referent, they don’t necessarily refer to it in exactly the same way. At least at this point in the discourse I see “the life” as an internal attribute of the Logos. Life is inside him and part of him. “The light” is an external attribute. It describes his relationship to the world, enlightening it. Now light can also be an internal attribute, as his eternal, unseen glory, and life can also be external, life-giving. But you can’t just say verse four is a convertible proposition and so everything that can be said about the one can be said about the other in exactly the same way.

[B Tucker]

Hi BookerG,

My credentials would be 7 years of Greek and 5 of Hebrew back in my college and seminary days, followed by 25 years of self-study (although I have to admit the study has waxed and waned over the years).

Impressive credentials.

As for the convertible proposition. I think they got it partially right, but applied it wrong.
It is right in that “the life” and “the light” are on equal footing. There is only one light, and there is only one life, and they both refer to the same one Logos. So you could say the life was the light, or the light was the life, and both would be true.

Agreed, "light" and "life" are convertible in some contexts (when they both mean λόγος), but the statement "η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων' is not a convertible proposition it seems to me. The latter is a grammatical category. Here's Daniel Wallace in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 41, p. 96

[the] convertible proposition...indicates an identical exchange. That is to say, both nouns have an identical referent. The mathematical formulas of A=B, B=A are applicable in such instances. A statement such as "Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player in NBA history" means the same thing as "the greatest player in NBA history is Michael Jordan." There is complete interchange between the two

For a genitive in simple apposition [but the same must apply to the other cases: "[t]he semantics of all but the genitive of apposition are the same--i.e., both substantives have an identical referent" (ibid. 62)] the two nouns are equivalent to a convertible proposition. Thus, "Paul the apostle" could be unpacked as "Paul is the apostle" or "the apostle is Paul"

--

Except:That only tells you that the referent is one and the same. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that their relationship to their respective prepositional phrases must be the same.

Yes.

Here’s a convertible proposition:
Bob is the son of Fred. It’s convertible, so I can say, the son of Fred is Bob. But I can’t necessarily say “the son is Bob of Fred.”
So it doesn’t automatically follow that just because the life was the light of men that the light was the life of men. A proper conversion would have been, “The light of men was the life.”

Yes. would you agree that it is plain wrong to call the following a "convertible proposition" -- η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων ?

And even though they both have the Logos as their referent, they don’t necessarily refer to it in exactly the same way.

Precisely.

At least at this point in the discourse I see “the life” as an internal attribute of the Logos. Life is inside him and part of him. “The light” is an external attribute. It describes his relationship to the world, enlightening it. Now light can also be an internal attribute, as his eternal, unseen glory, and life can also be external, life-giving. But you can’t just say verse four is a convertible proposition and so everything that can be said about the one can be said about the other in exactly the same way.

I agree.

On another note, I've also been toyig with J.R,'s idea (though I'm inclined against it) that the masculine pronoun in question in verse 10 "represent ὁ λόγος, the primary subject of John 1:1-18." Is this reading grammatically justifiable, or are we swimming against the tide with such an understanding? Right away I discern a serious problem, it leaves το φως in verse 9 without a referent. I just see too many difficulties. Are there other grammatical reasons which make this reading unlikely ? Are there grammatical reasons which help it ?

The peace of Christ,

[BookerG]

Maybe a better example of how a true convertible proposition works would be the sentence:
The Son of God is the Savior of the world.
Both have the same referent. You can turn the sentence around, and it will still be true:
The Savior of the world is the Son of God.
But that doesn’t imply that Son and Savior are interchangeable:
The Savior of God is the Son of the world.

Determining whether “the life was the light of men” is a convertible proposition only involves two things. Do they have the same referent? Yes. Are they on equal footing (the alternative would be if one was merely a subset of the other)? Yes.

So A=B, therefore B=A. The only mistake was thinking that A=the life, and B=the light. Wrong. B= “the light of men.” With that understanding, they are a convertible proposition. The life was the light of men. The light of men was the life. Other than a very slight change in emphasis those two sentences are identical.

On another note, I've also been toyig with J.R,'s idea (though I'm inclined against it) that the masculine pronoun in question in verse 10 "represent ὁ λόγος, the primary subject of John 1:1-18." Is this reading grammatically justifiable, or are we swimming against the tide with such an understanding? Right away I discern a serious problem, it leaves το φως in verse 9 without a referent. I just see too many difficulties. Are there other grammatical reasons which make this reading unlikely ? Are there grammatical reasons which help it ?

I’m not quite sure what you mean by “it leaves to phws in verse 9 without a referent. J.R. is not changing how you interpret verse 9 at all. He’s just saying that when you get to verse 10 and the masculine pronoun, we’ve come full circle and returned to a discussion of the Logos.
We started with the Logos, narrowed our vision to focus on two attributes of the Logos, life and light (or three, truth), now we’ve broadened the scope back out to the Logos. The referent has never changed, we’ve just been turning it over in our hands and looking at different aspects of it. I think I would agree with J.R., both because our eyes are drawn back to the Logos in the middle of 10 by the phrase, “the world was made through him,” and because we’re finished with the light aspect. There’s no more mention of light or allusion to light (other than “we have seen his glory” in verse 14). Now whether John chose auton, masculine, because it is the same gender as Logos, or because it is the same ad sensum gender as Christ, is something we would have to ask John.