1 John;- God is light

When John writes his first epistle, he is not, like Paul, addressing himself to a specific church under particular circumstances.
He writes, on behalf of himself and his fellow teachers, to anyone in the Christian body who will take his advice. Though his first readers were probably in Ephesus and that region of Asia Minor.
His purpose is to teach these Christians, or to remind them, that they are dwelling in God, through Christ, and to show them how this knowledge should be affecting their conduct.

He begins by re-affirming the basic principle that lies at the centre of the Christian message.
What is it that “we” proclaim to you? It is “the word of life” (ch1 v1)

He and his fellow-apostles are proclaiming something which was “from the beginning” , operating from eternity.
They proclaim “what we have heard”, which may include the words of the law and the prophets preparing the way for Christ.
And they proclaim “what we have seen with our eyes and looked upon and touched with our hands”, which brings us to Christ himself, the gospel message personified.
“Touched with our hands” may include a reference to their first encounter with the resurrected Jesus.
All this “concerns the word of life”.

Strictly speaking, the second verse interrupts this complex opening sentence. John picks up that word “life”, describing (as in the first chapter of the gospel) how that Life was “with the Father” and then “made manifest to us”, in the person of Christ.
So the disciples had personal experience of Life at work (“we saw”).
They are able to bear witness to the fact (“we testify”).
And they are able to declare it openly as the gospel (“we proclaim”).

John returns, in v3, to his opening point, relating to what the disciples have seen and heard concerning the word of life.
They are proclaiming these things in order to bring John’s readers into fellowship.
Fellowship, that is, with ”us” in the first instance. But this leads into fellowship with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.
So John is writing this letter in order that “our joy may be complete” .Or “your joy” may be complete.
Apparently there is manuscript authority for both readings. It doesn’t matter much, because the sentence works well either way. The joy of the readers will be complete if they are in fellowship with God, and the joy of the first disciples will be complete if they can see this happening.

The teaching of this letter begins (v5) with the fundamental message which the disciples received “from him” (that is, from the Son), and now duly proclaim;
“God is light, and in him is no darkness at all”.
There is an emphatic double negative in the original version of that statement- “not no darkness”.
One of the running themes of John’s gospel is the contrast between the light and the darkness.
If God was not light, he would not be revealing himself to us. Without that self-revelation, we could not know him, and if we did not know him we could not be in fellowship with him.

We may be mistaken about the true state of our relation with God, in various ways.

We may think we are in fellowship with God, when we haven’t even started (vv6-7).
For if we are “walking in darkness”, we cannot be in fellowship with a God who is light.
If we make that claim, then we must be lying, because it conflicts with the gospel teaching about the difference between the two states.
Putting it another way, we do not “do” the truth.

The remedy is to turn to God and walk in his light, thus entering into the state of fellowship with him.
Then we are “cleansed from all our sin” by the blood of Christ.
Of course that last phrase is a shorthand expression for “the fact that Christ died”.
He means that the death of Christ deals with our state of sin in such a way that it no longer interferes with our relationship with God. We are no longer “unclean” in God’s eyes.

Although we may be “cleansed of sin” in the eyes of God, it remains a mistake to think that we “have no sin” (vv8-9). That is, to deny the continuing presence of sin as a driving force in our conduct.
If we make that claim, then we are deceiving ourselves.
Putting it another way, the truth is “not in us”.

The remedy is to acknowledge and “confess” our sins, concealing nothing from ourselves.
God’s response will follow on from the fact that he is “faithful” (he keeps his promises) and from the fact that he is “just” (he does what is right).
God is light, and he will do what belongs to the light.
Which means, in this case, that he will forgive us our sins (an metaphor which treats them as a kind of debt), or cleanse us from our unrighteousness (a metaphor which treats it as a kind of stain).

Or we may think that we have not been sinning (v10).
In other words, we may think that our conduct has not been moved and affected by our sinful nature.
If we make that claim, then we go as far as calling God a liar, because his voice will have been speaking to our consciences.
Putting it another way, his word of truth is “not in us”.

The first mistake ignores the reality of sin, the second mistake ignores the responsibility for sin, and the third mistake ignores the fact of our continuing sin.

We find, in the next chapter, that part of the purpose of this letter is to deal with the last problem problem in particular;
“I am writing this to you that you may not sin”.
This chapter has been teaching them to find their remedy in holding onto the word of truth, coming “out of the darkness” and into God’s light.
But the real key to their relationship with the Father, as we learn from the rest of the letter, lies in their relationship with Christ.

The wording of the opening post is my own, but the commentary of B.F. Westcott has been an essential guide to the meaning of the text.

If God is light then aren't you seeing God right now, in the form of his "Son" who is the image of God and light of man. You see an image of light every waking moment of your life, you see it as you read this, you are created in God's image.

God is light and we are all children of light, there is no darkness in light. Even you and I can see darkness, the light that allows you to see darkness is the Father.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The light I see at every waking moment is the literal, physical light.
The concept of "light" in this chapter is a metaphorical light, and that is why "being in the light" is not automatic. John describes a choice between coming to the light and keeping away from it.

a reply to: DISRAELI

The non-physical light is the one that let's you see both the physical light and darkness. People who are blind from birth do not see darkness, they see nothing. There's a difference. We can see the darkness, the light that allows us to see darkness is where no darkness is found.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
OK, so we are both talking about a non-physical light.
And as John tells us, or warns us,there is a choice available to us of walking "in" the light or "out" of it. Walking "in" the light is not automatic (and walking "out" of the light is tempting to our natural inclinations), which is why he needs to urge us to make the right choice.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Either you search for the inner light or you indulge in the outer light, that's your choice. The inner light does not perish and is eternal but the outer light is temporary and will perish. Do not lay treasure on Earth where thieves can steal it, lay your treasure in heaven where no one can steal it, hide it in your inner/upper room.

Or better yet let your treasure shine for everyone to see through good deeds and love, only then will you get recognition from the Father within.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
John is describing a light which is is necessarily external to ourselves, because God is greater than we are. That is why "walking" in it is not automatic.
If we are going to get caught up in the egocentric attitude of relying upon ourselves alone, we are not goingto find the light of God.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Paul said we all share the same loaf who is Jesus, the bread of life. Even Jesus said his Father was greater than he was. A loaf of bread is not separate from the individual slices, the same goes for God and us.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
As long as you understand that we are taken up into Christ, who is greater than ourselves. We don't produce him from within ourselves.
Above all else, we must avoid the delusion of thinking that the self-centred approach of focussing on "within" is a form of spirituality. It is not. It is the standard human fault of the glorification of the Ego, dressed up in a plausible way for those who want to deceive themselves.

a reply to: DISRAELI

John 14
20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

When you "go into your room, close the door and pray in secret" where are your prayers projected? If not within then you are not praying to Jesus who is within, by his own words.

If he is not within you like he says then you have been looking outward instead of inward. Clean the inside of the cup first and the outside will follow, you can't clean the inside until you've gone inside.

Jesus prayed that we would all be one as he and his Father were one. If you don't have God within you then you are not one with him.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
My point is that he does not originate from within. He is not projected. His origin is from outside. God created us, not the other way round.
As long as you are focussed exclusively on the "within", you are concentrating on nothing but your own Ego. It is your own Ego that is resisting taking this point on board.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Of course he didn't originate from within, we originated from him, not the other way around.

God does not have an origin, he is timeless so you claiming he has an origin doesn't sound very Christian. If God originated from outside then how could an eternal being come from something that is only temporary?

The "outside" is the world, we know the god of this world is not the true God so how can God be in it?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
As long as we agree that God is not to be sought primarily"within" us, then that is OK.

a reply to: DISRAELI

So why does Jesus say he is within us? If Jesus is God and Jesus says that he is within us then how is God outside of us?

You say God is outside of us, Jesus says that he is in us. Which is right?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I've already covered this point. He originates from outside, and then "enters into us" or "takes us into himself" (which are two different ways of describing the same process).
All these passages about God and Christ being within us are beside the point, because they don't support the idea that he is exclusively within us.

The delusion is the idea that we need to focus particularly on the "within". That is nothing but your Ego speaking, saying "Hey, look at me".

a reply to: DISRAELI

So God originates from the outside world? But didn't Satan offer Jesus the world? Why would Jesus reject the world if that's where God originates from?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
You are confusing the issue by using the same word in different ways.
1. God originates from outside ourselves
2. The created world originated from God (not the other way round).
3. Satan was offering the created world, but did not have the right to make that offer. Jesus rejected what was being offered because it came from the wrong source.

And the only thing you will find if you insist on looking "within" exclusively is your own self-centred "look at me" Ego.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Ok, I see what you mean and I agree. We originate from God who is greater than we are but that still does not mean he is not within us. God is greater than Jesus yet he is still one with God. The same goes for us which is why on the day of revelation we will realize that he is in us and we in him.

Only when you clear the cloud of confusion will God come into you and make you realize he never left. God never abandons us just as the bible says, we are the ones who abandon him.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I'm glad we agree.