So who is this person?

So, onward with John's poetic prologue.  We move to the next paragraph John 1:14-17 which matches the paragraph about life and light in several ways.  The most obvious is that each has a  parenthesis about John (the Baptiser) and his witness to Jesus.  The initial sentence in this paragraph is about 'coming among us' and in the earlier paragraph the last sentence is about 'coming into the world'.  This doesn't mean that there is no resonance with the other paragraphs though!

One of the important things that happens in this paragraph is that John clearly identifies who he is writing about.  He starts by referring to the person he is speaking about as 'the Word' (this is the only time after the first verse); he ends by refering to Jesus Christ.  In between, he introduces the term 'the one and only' which he will use in the next paragraph.  So now we have the name of this person.  This is important for connecting us with the historical narrative which follows.  We know that this first bit is not random, but inviting us into the story of Jesus.

We are given more understanding of what John is asking us to be open to.  Up to now he has just said that the one he is talking about 'came' into the world.  This could mean some other sort of esoteric 'appearing'.  But here we are told that he 'became flesh', or became body.  If we have been reading closely up to now, this should astonish us.  We have been told that this being is cosmic in power and universal in significance; now we are told that he became animal, in the sense of consisting of muscle and bone.  That is hugely difficult to get our minds around, but John doesn't labour the point here. 

He is going to give us the rest of the story to come to terms with what he has said and some of what it might mean. Right now what he is doing is planting the thought in our minds so that the story is able to ask us the questions as we go along.

light and life (part two)

Most languages and cultures use the image of light in metaphors built into the language, and most philosophies (whether religion or ideology) use it too.  In English we use "enlightenment", in both technical and non-technical senses, when we are referring to a movement from superstition to actual understanding, or for new attitudes emerging from recognition of new information.  The same word is used in Buddhism and many new age religions to describe the major spiritual change offered to the diligent disciple.  More mundane examples: it dawned on me = I realised, we often cartoon a idea as a light bulb.


So John now puts the light in a context: darkness, of course.  The whole point of light is that it shines in the darkness and stops it being dark.
John never tells us what the light means, and there are all sorts of pronouncements as to what precisely he intends.  But, if someone uses an image it is usually because the idea is too rich for more precise ways of describing it.  We are not meant to define the light; at this point we are meant to get a picture inside us that will keep popping up to make us wonder about this person who will be the subject of the narrative.  In a sense, the more the image bounces around in our heads creating resonances, the better for John's purpose.  This is poetry, not systematic analysis.

But, that doesn't mean that John doesn't tell us anything about the light.  It doesn't mean that I can take the image and turn it to my own purposes. 

John elaborates by extending the image:  "The light shines in the darkness ..."  It is obvious in a silly way, but this is important.  Light is not darkness, it dissapates darkness.  This goes further in that the darkness has not overcome/understood the light.  In most translations one of these two words occurs in the text, and the other in a footnote, because the Greek word is ambiguous; it means both. We shouldn't try to work out which is the meaning here, but should discover the vitality of both meanings held together.  (We have two English words that give a similar feel: comprehend - to understand or to surround and limit; grasp - to understand or to hold onto and not let go.)  Darkness is helpless with respect to light.  It has no hold on light, it can't limit light, it can't stop light, it can't even 'understand' light.  John shows us that we are not talking about two equal entities or qualities, a sort of ying and yang that are both necessary and must be balanced, held together, and even mixed.  Darkness is not light, and ultimately cannot co-exist with it. 

Now we have this explosive graphic idea in our minds, John breaks off for his little piece of story ...