This research emphasises the positive theological exposition of the prologue from the perspective of the customary light concept.¹ The objective is firstly to indicate the comprehensive embeddedness of the light metaphor in the Johannine prologue, and secondly to highlight the many features of the light metaphor. Finally, this investigation shows how the light metaphor connects major themes in the prologue – light being one of the key theological themes of the prologue. The focus in this research will be on how the Logos is described to function as the Light during and after the incarnation.²

A dual approach will be followed: (1) an inner-textural reading of the text to identify the various semantic overtones regarding the light metaphor, and to structure the research, and (2) a sacred-textural reading to correlate and interpret these semantic overtones.³

Interpretation of the semantic related texts: In contrast to John ‘the Baptist’ (Jn 1:8), who was merely a ‘lamp’ (Jn 5:35), Jesus is depicted as the true light itself (Ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, 9.1) (Keener 2003:393). The reference ‘coming into the world’ (ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον, 9.1.1.1) applies to the light and refers to the incarnation. It is an apt Johannine depiction of Jesus in view of the common application to him of ἐρχόμενος.⁵ The hope of Israel was focused on the one coming into the world, (ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον, 9.1.1.1; see also εἰς τὰ ἴδια ἦλθεν, 11.1), a phrase canonised in messianic expectation.⁶ The ‘coming’ of the light refers not only to the moment of its arrival but also to its proximity and accessibility that result from that coming and by which every person has come within reach of the light (Ridderbos 1997:43).

The reference that ‘he was in the world’ (ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν, 10.1) could indicate the presence of the Logos or Light in the dwelling place of men, and then takes on the meaning of ‘the world of man’. This would mean that he was so close to men that they could reach him, even cleave to him for their salvation (Schnackenburg [1968]1980:255). The prior reference to John in verses 6–8 and the continuation of this thought (10.1) make clear that the mission of the incarnate Logos is already in focus, although the incarnation will only explicitly be mentioned in verse 14. The Logos was not only the fundamental and universal principle of light in the divine plan, but he also illumined the existence and way of man from within the historical reality of man’s environment or ‘world’ (Schnackenburg [1968]1980:255). Unfortunately, the leading circles of the Jews remain somewhat stubborn ‘without understanding (cf. Jn 8:14, 19; 9:29; also 8:28, 43) and indeed blind (Jn 9:39) when confronted with the “light of the world”’ (Schnackenburg [1968]1980:258). The coming of the light occasions a division in Israel (Jn 3:19–21). The ‘world’, the ‘Judeans’, even Jesus’s ‘own’ will not receive the light (Jesus) (Jn 1:10f; 3:19) (Malina & Rohrbauch 1998:32).⁷ Thus the first three references in the semantc relations (1.1, 1.2, 1.3) follow one another in a climbing logical sequence.

It is only in 14.1 that the FE again refers to the incarnation⁸ as a new event (Καὶ ἐγένετο) (Schnackenburg [1968]1980:256) and explains this event. The Logos of God became σὰρξ (flesh), and dwelt ‘amongst us’ (Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν). Here, the incarnation reaches a climax; hence, divine and human polarities are held together in one person (Schnackenburg [1968]1980:266). Whereas in the first part of the prologue the divine presence of the Word as the light of the world is emphasised, now the focus shifts to the self-identification of the Word with the man Jesus (cf. Petersen 1993:14). By means of incarnation, God has now visibly appeared amongst humankind. The flesh is the medium of the glory and makes it visible to all people.

The explicit mention of Logos in verse 14 links it with verse 1 and forms a multiple contrast with verse 1,⁹ although verse 1 also serves as a commentary on verse 14. Both verses have a double καὶ and highlight the contrast:¹⁰ verse 1 καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος verse 14 Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο ...... καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν

Conclusion: In this section we have discussed how the FE prepared the reader in three references (9.1.1.1; 10.1; 11.1) for the realisation of the incarnation in verse 14. In verse 14 the incarnation is clearly contrasted with heavenly transcendence (verse 1). The Logos, who was with God in the beginning, came into the world as light (glory) and ‘tabernacled’ in this world.

φαίνει describes the reality that the light (glory) shines

ἐλάβομεν refers to the reception of the glory

ἐγένετο¹³ refers to the giving of the ‘grace and truth’ (glory)

These three verbs φαίνει, ἐλάβομεν and ἐγένετο are related due to the fact that they belong to the same semantic field of ‘revelation’ or even ‘enlightenment’. The FE describes repeatedly the nature of the experience and reason for its coming in terms of the phrase ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια. Here Jesus, τὸ φῶς, is referred to as having the δόξαν, which is characterised as χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας (14.3.1) and which he gives to those who believe in him (Jn 17:2).

Interpretation of the semantic related texts: Verse 5 introduces the light or darkness dualism which occurs throughout the Gospel of John.¹⁴ Both light (Jn 1:4, 5, 7, 8, 9; 3:19–21; 5:35; 8:12; 9:5; 11:9, 10; 12:35, 36, 46) and day (Jn 9:4), darkness (Jn 1:5; 3:19; 8:12; 12:35, 46) and night (Jn 9:4; 11:10) appear regularly throughout the Gospel. The antithesis in verse 5 was a typical rhetorical form in Greek and Jewish thought.¹⁵ If a person walks in the light they will never be overcome by darkness (Keener 2003:387, 382).

It seems as if the FE was also influenced by the Jewish literature which portrays both Wisdom and Torah as light (Ps 119:105, 130; Pr 6:23). Jesus as God’s Word, Wisdom and Torah is light to enlighten the people of God, similar to the Torah being light offered to the people of God at Sinai. ‘Light of people’ (Jn 1:4) relates to ‘light for humanity’ (Jn 3:19), ‘light for the world’ (Jn 9:5). In the prologue of John this light relates to glory (verse 14), as is the case in Revelations 18:1 and 21:23 (Keener 2003:385).

Therefore the FE states it comprehensibly in the prologue that the Logos (the Light) became a human being to enlighten the world.¹⁶ He came into the world as light (Jn 3:19; 12:46; 8:12). The light was certainly ‘in the world’ (Jn 1:10) in this context and the entrance of light to which John testifies according to the prologue (verses 6–8 and 15) is the incarnate Logos, whose incarnation is depicted as a new Sinai theophany¹⁷ in verses 14–18. The guiding imagery for verses 14–18 comes from Exodus 33–34 (cf. also Ex 26). This would reinforce the wilderness background of the image of God’s presence amongst his people.¹⁸ Here at Mount Sinai, for a second time in the context of giving the Torah, God revealed his character (‘glory’) to Moses. In this context ‘glory’ alludes to the revelation of God to Moses in Exodus 33–34, which could also be pictured as shining (cf. Ex 34:29; Keener 2003:412). As in Exodus, the Word came to God’s people. According to the FE he is the one who tabernacles¹⁹ amongst his people and whose glory is revealed; he is the Word. Here (as in 2 Cor 3), not²⁰ Moses but eyewitnesses of Jesus behold and testify to God’s glory (Keener 2003:405). Jewish readers, with such a complex of concepts, would have known that ‘glory’ refers to a revelation of God’s character, as implied in Exodus 33–34 (see especially Ex 33:19; 34:6–7).²¹

‘Glory’ as well as ‘grace and truth’ have been received by others from him. In verse 14 Logos is the antecedent of the personal pronoun his (αὐτοῦ). Hence, glory (δόξαν) is the quality of the Logos. However, in 14.3.1 the noun ‘glory’ is frequent, but now in relation to the ‘only Son from the Father’ (μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός). Consequently, the glory of the Logos is experienced in Jesus, but as the ‘glory of the only Son from the Father’. The noun glory is employed metaphorically in 14.3 and therefore relates to ‘the light that shines (φαίνει) in the darkness’ (5.1), which substantiates this statement. Although it has the sense of luminosity as noted earlier in 14.3.1, it is employed literally as befitting the ‘only Son’ (μονογενὴς) of the Father.²²

The FE also applies Jesus’s ‘glory’ to various acts of self-revelation (his signs: Jn 2:11; 11:4, 40).²³ But the ultimate expression of glory is the complex of Jesus’s death (Jn 12:16, 23, 28; 13:31–32), resurrection and exaltation (cf. Jn 7:39; 12:16; 17:1, 5). This glory becomes the ultimate revelation of ‘grace and truth’. In the expression then of ‘glory ... full of grace and truth’ (14.3.1) the addition of ‘fullness’ modifies ‘glory’. ‘When God revealed his character of ”grace and truth” at Sinai, it was incomplete. Moses saw only part of God’s glory (Ex 33:20–23; Jn 1:18). What here was actually an incomplete revelation of grace and truth through Moses was complete through Christ (Jn 1:17)’ (Keener 2003:417; also Neyrey 2007:46). God provided the light for all humanity in the incarnation of Jesus as He did to all nations at Sinai through the Torah (Keener 2003:394–395).

With regard to the reception of the Light, a form of synonymy occurs. In verses 14–18, there is mention of ‘beholding’ (ἐθεασάμεθα, 14.3) and ‘receiving’ (ἐλάβομεν, 16.1). The opposite to John 5:2, 10.3 and 11.2 relate to the same objects, ‘grace and truth’ (ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια, 17), which suggests that they are also used synonymously (Bultmann [1966] 1978:76; also Petersen 1993:19). Similarly, the objects of ‘receiving’ are also synonymous with the designations of the Logos in verses 1–5. ‘Receiving’ is used of both ‘grace and truth’ (16.1 and 17.2) and of ‘the Logos or Light’ (12.1, with the antecedent noun in 9.1). In 12.1.2 this ‘receiving’ is even further defined by the verb ‘to believe’ (πιστεύουσιν). Because ‘beholding’ is also used in relation to the Logos (14.3), which is synonymous with ‘Light’, ‘grace and truth’ would be synonymous with the Logos as well as ‘the Light’. Hence, ‘grace’ and ‘truth’ should also be capitalised, as truth is capitalised later in the FG (Jn 14:6) (Petersen 1993:19).²⁶

Conclusion: This section reflected on the praxis of light and emphasised the soteriological and revelatory χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας aspects of the incarnation of the Logos or Light, which is summarised in the verb ἐξηγήσατο in verse 18.2. Already in verse 5.1 the FE prepared his readers for what to expect further. It became clear that the ‘enlightenment’ (glory) of the Logos or Light is associated closely with the glory of God at the Tent of Meeting (Shekinah).

Semantic relations

5.2 καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ ... οὐ ... κατέλαβεν²⁷

10.3 καὶ ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω

11.2 καὶ οἱ ἴδιοι ... αὐτὸν οὐ ... παρέλαβον

The notion of light leads to a significant contrast between Light or light and darkness in verse 5. The reference to darkness (τῇ σκοτίᾳ) in 5.2 is metaphorical and correlates with the unbelievers as also referred to metaphorically in 10.3 (ὁ κόσμος αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔγνω) and literally in 11.2 as ‘his own’ (οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον). The semantic relations between the expressions in 5.2, 10.3 and 11.2 refer to the same act, namely that of ’not recognising’ (οὐκ ἔγνω) or ’not accepting’ (οὐ παρέλαβον) the Light. The act or concept is the same although referring differently to two diverse subjects. The first one refers to the world (ὁ κόσμος), and the second to the Jews (οἱ ἴδιοι). Subsequently, there is also an antithetical relation with 12.1 (ἔλαβον), which comprises the opposite of 11.2 (οὐ παρέλαβον) and forms a chiasmus with 11.2 (cf. Schnackenburg [1968]1980:247).

Interpretation of the semantic related texts: This section, which focuses on text references in the first part of the prologue, examines the negative (negations οὐ, οὐκ, οὐ) response to the incarnation. Antithesis such as that in John 5:2 was a typical rhetorical form in both Greek and Jewish thought.²⁸ This was particularly relevant and applicable in an environment where the language implies a sort of moral dualism, as here in the prologue. Darkness appears as a negative symbol in most ancient literature, including later Jewish texts. The struggle between light and darkness is also evident in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QS²⁹ 3.17–26). There the conflict between the two is a salient element, and darkness seems to hold the upper hand in the world (cf. 1QS 3.24; 11.10; 1QM³⁰ 13.11–12; 15.9). The language of John 1:5 indicates some sort of conflict between light and darkness, although the nature of the conflict is disputed. Darkness could not ‘apprehend’ or ‘overtake’ the light (cf. 1QS 13.14–16), whether by comprehending it (grasping with the mind) or by overcoming it (grasping with the hand). The device of playing on different senses, or different terms spelled the same way, ‘was a rhetorical device that some rhetoricians called traductio’ (Keener 2003:387). It seems that the FE may have adapted similar language in John 1:5. To the extent that the verb tense indicates a specific historical application beyond its general application to history, the past action will be more relevant and applicable. Consequently, the phrase ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν summarises the whole of Jesus’s incarnate ministry. Then the darkness implies Jesus’s opposition amongst the ‘world’ in general (10.3), and the ‘Jews’ in particular (11.2). Hence, the reference to darkness (ἡ σκοτία, 5.2) is metaphorically used as a compound word to be explained later to be the ‘world’ (10.3) and the ‘Jews’ (11.2).³¹

In verse 10.3 the FE refers to Jesus’s rejection in a generic sense as ‘the world did not know’ Jesus (οὐκ ἔγνω, 10.3), even became hostile to him (Jn 15:18–19; 17:9–6). For the FE, this was all part of the cosmic conflict of light against darkness (Burridge 2007:295). In the rest of the FG, this world included the initially ignorant Gentiles (Jn 4:42).³² They also obviously remained an object of his mission (Jn 3:16–17; 4:42; 6:33, 51).³³ In the OT too, there were those who did not know God, who rejected him (1 Sm 2:12; Is 1:3; Jr 4:22; Hs 5:4). The Jewish tradition likewise claimed that God offered his Torah – his Word – to all nations; nevertheless, the nations rejected it because they wished to continue in their sins (Keener 2003:397). According to the FG, the world did not know the Father (Jn 16:3), the Spirit (Jn 14:17); the believers are depicted to be not from this world (Jn 3:3, 8).³⁴ The lack of knowledge of Jesus by the world is also echoed in John 1:26 and 2:9.

Hence, the differentiating function of light is related to the worldly distinction between day and night, which serves as an analogy for the Light shining in the world in Jesus. For the FE, light is first differentiated from darkness, which refers to the world without Light (Jn 1:1–5, 9–13). But, the shining of the Light or light also differentiates the followers of the Light from those who do not follow. To say that Jesus is the Light that shines or comes into the world is metaphorical.³⁷ He is the light in this world who also gives the ‘Light of Life’ (Jn 1:4) to those who have accepted him (ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, Jn 1:12; 8:12; 9:5; 12:46). But the coming or shining of the Light produces differentiation between those who have the ‘Light of Life’ and those who do not (Jn 3:13–21) (Petersen 1993:75). The FE contrasts those who ‘walk in darkness’ with those who ‘come to the Light’ and in the process renders these expressions synonymous with the synonyms associated with the contrast between ‘receiving’ and ’not receiving’ (Jn 3:17–21; 8:12; 12:35–36, 46).³⁸ In fact, in John 12:36, believing in the Light makes it possible to become ‘children of light’, which appears to be a metaphorical synonym for the metaphor of ‘becoming children of God’ (τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι, Jn 1:12) (Petersen 1993:20–21).

Conclusion: This section discussed the struggle between light and darkness. All references occur in the first section of the prologue. In verse 5.2, the FE uses the noun σκοτία as a compound word to refer to both the ‘world’ and ‘Jews’, Jesus’ opponents. Those who ‘walk in darkness or non-acceptance’ (11.2), are contrasted with those ‘who come to the light’.

Interpretation of the semantic related texts: In verse 9 the FE states that the true light ‘enlightens every person’ (cf. 4.2) and thus describes the light in its fullness and universality. By this statement we cannot infer that every individual is in fact enlightened by the light (cf. 5.2 and 10.3). What is true is that the light is for everyone and it is only by the light alone that a person can live (cf. Jn 8:12; also 1:12, 13) (Ridderbos 1997:43).

Verse 12 expresses the positive response to the incarnation or reception of the Logos or Light and previews the second part of the FG where Jesus is portrayed with those who did receive him. They are a new group who can be called ‘his own’ (Jn 13:1). According to 12.1.1, it seems that the Logos authorises the constitution (ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν) of a new people of God, those who walk in the light (Jn 3:21; see also 1 Jn 1). He puts people in the position of being able to become children of God.⁴¹ They are contrasted to both, the world and Israel, by the adversative δὲ (but) (Keener 2003:399).⁴²

Their authority⁴⁷ (ἐξουσίαν, Jn 12:1.1) to become God’s children (Jn 1:12) emphasises divine authorisation to become what no human effort can accomplish (Jn 5:27; 10:18; 17:2; 19:10); only the revealer from above or the Light can inaugurate them into the world above (Jn 3:13–18). Becoming children of God entails receiving the divine nature or character of Jesus. This contrast between divine authorisation and human ability is clear in verses 12–13 of the prologue. Outside the prologue, differentiation is evident when Jesus claims to be the light that has come into the world (Jn 1:9–13; 3:19; 8:12; 9:5; 12:46) to give (ἔδωκεν αὐτοι, 12.1.1) the ‘Light of Life’ to those who ‘follow’ or ’believe in’ that Light (Jn 8:12), which enables them to ‘become children of the Light’ (ἵνα υἱοὶ φωτὸς γένησθε, Jn 12:36, 49–50). To have the ‘Light of life’ is synonymous with ‘children of the Light’ and ‘children of God’ (τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι, Jn 1:12). These expressions are also synonymous with being ‘born from above’ (γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, Jn 3:3, 7), ‘born of the Spirit’ (γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος, Jn 3:6, 8), ‘having eternal life’ (ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον, Jn 3:16–21; 12: 44–50), and knowing ‘the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ’ (γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας ʼΙησοῦν Χριστόν, Jn 17:3) (Petersen 1993:73).

The Light’s luminosity, during the incarnation, is only perceivable to the believers (Jn 1:8–9; 12:36) and is formulated by the FE in terms of the Logos’s glory, which is manifest in Jesus (Jn 1:14; 2:11). In the context of the prologue, ‘glory’ (δόξα, 14) refers to the luminosity of the Logos or the true⁴⁸ Light that pre-existed (Jn 1:14; 12:41) before the creation (πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, Jn 1:3; ὁ κόσμος διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, Jn 1:10) and to which it returned in Jesus’s glorification (Jn 17:1, 5, 24). During the incarnation, this glory was manifest ‘to believe’ (τοῖς πιστεύουσιν, 1:12) in Jesus (1:14; 2:11). As the Father gave Jesus his ‘glory’, so did He give it to the followers of Jesus, so that they may be united both with one another and with the Father and the Son, just as the Father and the Son are themselves united (Jn 17:11, 20–23). In the ‘world below’ the Father, Son, and the Father’s children are differentiated from one another, but the ultimate state envisioned by the FE is an undifferentiated one as envisioned in the notions of ‘Light’, ‘glory’ and ‘Life’ (Petersen 1993:74).⁴⁹

Conclusion: In this final section (verses 12–13) the FE presents what happens to those who come to the Light. For him ‘children of the Light’ is synonymous with ‘children of God’ and ‘those who believe in Jesus’s name’.

It has been pointed out how the incarnation of the Logos is depicted as a new Sinai theophany; it fulfils the salvation (enlightenment) started with the Shekinah in the wilderness. Whilst shining in the world, the light produces differentiation between those who ‘receive’ it (ἔλαβον αὐτόν, 12), and those who ‘do not receive’ it (οὐ κατέλαβεν, 5; οὐκ ἔγνω, 10; οὐ παρέλαβον, 11). Whilst the only Son of God (μονογενὴς θεὸς, 14; 18) is in himself undifferentiated, he is also in himself the place of differentiation. When the Son entered the world it is referred to in the language of differentiation, such as ‘the light shines in the darkness’ (τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, 5). Hence, the categories of ‘differentiation’ and ’non-differentiation’ are analytical categories that describe the main soteriological functions of the light conceptual system (cf. Pietersen 1993:72–79).

It also became evident that the concept of light, as used in the prologue and the FG, belongs to both the sphere of pure contemplation and praxis. It has an ethical import (cf. Avis 1999:54). The FE employs metaphorically the imagery of light (vehicle) to describe the Logos (tenor), and to emphasise his salvific function.

Augustine, n.d., Tractate 2 (John 1:6–14), viewed 09 November 2011, from http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701002.htm.

Avis, P., 1999, God and the creative imagination: Metaphor, symbol and myth in religion and theology, Routledge, New York.

Barrett, C.K., [1955] 1975, The Gospel according to St John. An introduction with commentary and notes on the Greek text, SPCK, London.

Boismard, M.E., 1953, St. John’s Prologue, transl. Carisbrooke Dominicans, Blackfriars, London.

Boismard, M.E., 1983, Moses or Jesus. An essay in Johannine Christology, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

Borgen, P., 1970, ‘Observations on the Targumic character of the Prologue of John’, NTS 16, 288–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500012558

Brown, R.E., 1965, ‘Prologue of the Gospel of John: John 1:1–18’, Review & Expositor 62(4), 429–439.

Burridge, R.A., 2007, Imitating Jesus: An inclusive approach to New Testament ethics, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich.

Cahill, P.J., 1976, ‘Johannine Logos as center’, QBC 38(1), 54–72.

Culpepper, R.A., 1981, ‘The pivot of John’s Prologue’, NTS 27, 1–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500010237

Culpepper, R.A., 1983, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design, Fortress Press, Philadelphia. PMCid:370365

Deeks, P.W., 2002, ‘The light of glory: An exposition of the Prologue of John’s Gospel’, Churchman 116 (2), 113–126.

De Wolf, L.H., 1960, ‘Proclaiming Jesus Christ as Light’, Encounter 21(1), 43–51.

Dodd, C.H., 1963, Historical tradition in the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554919

Hanson, A.T., 1976, ‘John i.14–18 and Exodus xxxiv’, New Testament Studies 23, 90–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500008420

Hildegard, S. & Newman, B., 2003, ‘Commentary on the Johannine Prologue’, Theology Today 60(1), 16–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004057360306000103

Hooker, M., 1970, ‘John the Baptist and the Johannine Prologue’, NTS 16, 357–381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500014065

Keener, C.S., 2003, The Gospel of John. A commentary, Vol. 1, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Mass.

Köstenberger, A.J., 2004, John. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, Mich.

LaMarche, P., 1997, ‘The Prologue of John (1964)’, in J. Ashton (ed.), The Interpretation of John, pp. 47–66, T & T Clark, Edinburgh.

Lincoln, A.T., 2005, The Gospel According to St John, Black’s New Testament Commentary, vol. 4, Continuum, New York.

Louw, J.P. & Nida, E.A., 1993, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on semantic domains, United Bible Societies, Cape Town.

Lyons, J., 1977, Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165693

Malina, B.J. & Rohrbauch, R.L., 1998, Social-Science commentary on the Gospel of John, Augsburg Fortress Publishers, Minneapolis.

Miller, G.L., 1977, ‘Life and the glory: Some reflections on the Prologue to John’, Brethren Life and Thought 22(4), 211–226.

Mullins, M., 2003, The Gospel of John. A commentary, The Columba Press, Dublin.

Neyrey, J.H., 2007, The Gospel of John, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Palmer, F.R., 1981, Semantics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Petersen, N.R., 1993, The Gospel of John and the sociology of light: Language and characterization in the Fourth Gospel, Trinity Press International, Valley Forge.

Phillips, P.M., 2006, The Prologue of the Fourth Gospel. A sequential reading, Library of New Testament Studies 294, T & T Clark, London.

Psalms of Solomon, viewed 08 November 2011, from "http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/pss017.htm

Riches, J., 2005, ‘Worship resources. Exegetical reflections on lectionary readings: Johannine Prologue’, Expository Times 117(2), 69–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0014524605059892

Ridderbos, H., 1997, The Gospel of John. (A theological commentary), transl. J. Vriend, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich.

Robbins, V.K., 1996, Exploring the texture of texts: A guide to socio-rhetorical interpretation, Trinity Press International, Valley Forge.

Ryan, W.F., 1963, ‘John’s hymn to the world’, Worship 37(5), 285–292.

Schnackenburg, R., [1968] 1980, The Gospel According to St John, vol. I, transl. K. Smyth, Burns & Oates, London.

Smalley, S.S., 2002, 1,2,3 John, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 51, Word, Incorporated, Dallas.

Staley, J., 1986, ‘The structure of John’s Prologue: Its implications for the Gospel’s narrative structure’, CBQ 48(2), 241–264.

Van der Watt, J.G., 1995, ‘The Prologue of John’s Gospel: The historical Jesus introducing divine grace’, Westminster Theological Journal 57(2), 311–332.

Waetjen, H.C., 2001, ‘Logos pros ton Theon and the objectification of truth in the prologue of the Fourth Gospel’, CBQ 63(2), 265–286.

2. In the first article the focus is on the references to the light metaphor in the Johannine prologue prior to the incarnation. In this article the focus is on the references to the light metaphor during and after the incarnation.

3. The inner-textural and sacred-textural readings of a text are textures used in the socio-rhetorical methodology as developed by Vernon Robbins (Robbins 1996). Another scholar, Duane Watson, is working in collaboration with Robbins on this methodology. In my usage of this terminology I do not comply with the way Robbins and Watson use it. For us it is just an indication and reference to work with the text (inner-texture) and the theological discourse (sacred-texture) generated by the text. The reference to a ‘dual approach’ only refers to the abovementioned two approaches that will be exploited in this research.

5. See John 1:15, 27; 3:31; 6:14; 11:27; 12:13; Hebrews 10:37; 2 John 7; Revelations 1:4.

6. See Phillips (2006:182–185) for a thorough discussion of the meaning of κόσμος in this context.

7. See also Ridderbos (1997:44f.) for an explanation of ‘world’ and ‘his own’.

8. See Keener (2003:406–408) for an inner-textural discussion of ‘the Word’s incarnation’.

9. Hence, in comparison with verse 1, verse 14: ‘expresses the unmistakable paradox that the Logos who dwelt with God, clothed in the full majesty and glory of the divinity and possessing the fullness of the divine life, entered the sphere of the earthly and human, the material and perishable, by becoming flesh’(Schnackenburg [1968]1980:266).

10. For Köstenberger (2004:41) the incarnation represents an event of equal importance with creation.

11. Its Johannine usage expresses ‘which is earth–bound (3:6), transient and perishable (6:63), the typical human mode of being, as it were, in contrast to all that is divine and spiritual’ (Schnackenburg [1968]1980:267).

13. This semantic relation gives the verbs ἐλάβομεν and ἐγένετο enlightening (illuminating) status.

14. According to Keener (2003:382) this dualism, which figures heavily in Gnosticism, is no less pervasive in earlier sources. He refers to a few philosophers who spoke of true knowledge as providing light. For example, Seneca Ep. Lucil. 48.8 (lumen), Plutarch Lect 17 and cf. Philo Creation 53. Also see Acts 17:27; 26:18; Ephesians 4:18.

15. See Keener (2003:386) for verifications of this statement.

16. Philo regards God as light and the archetype of all other kinds of light (Philo Dreams 1.75, from Ps 27:1; Alleg. Interp. 3.25–26; Planting 9). See Keener (2003:383f.) for a thorough discussion of the figurative use of light in the OT and the common application of the contrast of light and darkness with good and evil respectively.

17. See Beasley-Murray (2002:14). Ridderbos (1997:53) points out that no transfiguration occurs in the FG and therefore does not refer the incarnation and glory of the Logos to any single sensational event. That glory is attendant on the dwelling, just as in the Old Testament a persistent connection exists between God’s presence in the tabernacle and temple and the divine kabod revealing itself there.

18. Barrett ([1955] 1975:138); Malina & Rohrbauch (1998:33); Keener (2003:409).

19. The phrase καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν (14.2) speaks metaphorically of the Logos ‘pitching his tent’ or ‘dwelling amongst us’ (both translations are possible) (Louw & Nida 1993:83, §7.9, §7.17). The Greek verb σκηνόω has as its cognate noun σκηνή, which means tent or tabernacle, and so could refer to ‘pitch his tent’ or ‘tabernacle’. In the OT, it is the tabernacle and the temple that provided the special locations for such a dwelling. In Sirach 24:8–11, Wisdom, as God’s immanent presence, could be said to take up its dwelling both in the tabernacle and in Zion, because the nature of that presence as glory – the Shekinah – will also be taken up in the rest of the confession of the Logos. Here the specific place of the divine dwelling and presence is seen to be in Jesus rather than in the tabernacle or temple. This fulfilment-and-replacement theme developed further interest in the FG (cf. Jn 1:51; 2:19–21; 4:21–6; see also Lincoln 2005:104).

20. Boismard (1983:94–98); also Ridderbos (1997:55); Keener (2003:410, 417). See also the focused essay of Hanson (1976:90–101).

21. Keener (2003:410; cf. also Ridderbos (1997:51); see Boismard (1983:94–98) for a thorough discussion of the relation between Exodus 33–34 and John 1:14–18.

22. The book of Exodus narrates the experience of the Israelites of God’s glory on Mount Sinai (Ex 24:16). The glory covered the mountain where Moses was summoned to approach the presence (Ex 24:16–18). Though Moses sought the glory of God, he was not permitted to see the face of God. Like the Israelites, he had but a glimpse of the glory, which was a manifestation of the presence of God (Ex 33:18–23). After the constitution of the covenant, at the Tent of Meeting, God spoke to Moses face to face as a man speaks with his friend. On another occasion the cloud covered the Tent of Meeting and the Lord’s glory filled the tabernacle so that Moses could not enter (Ex 40:34–5). See also Mullins (2003:71–74) for more discussion on this.

23. See Ridderbos (1997:53). ‘Signs’ and ‘glory’ were already connected in the LXX. See Numbers 14:22 (with regard to Moses, cf. Ex 16:7; Nm 14:22). See also Sirach 45:3.

25. Barrett ([1955] 1975:132); Schnackenburg ([1968] 1980:245); Phillips (2006:171).

26. Bultmann ([1966] 1978:18–19; 73–74) describes ‘grace and truth’ as ‘hendiadys’. This means that one thing is said by two words. According to him, these words ‘describe God’s being, not ‘in itself’, but … [as] the benefits in which God (or the Revealer) abounds, and which he bestows on the believer’. He also states that in the FG ‘truth’ has ‘the meaning of divine reality itself’, and that ‘Truth is not the teaching about God transmitted by Jesus but is God’s very reality revealing itself – occurring – in Jesus.’

27. Phillips (2006:172–174).

28. See Keener (2003:386) for occurrences and examples. See also Smalley (2002:19–20) for a brief discussion.

29. Refers to the Community Rule (1QS) which was previously referred to as the Manual of Discipline (in Hebrew Serekh ha–Yahad). See also the section ‘Of the two spirits in man’.

30. The War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness is a manual for military organisation and strategy that was discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is also known by the names War Rule, Rule of War and War Scroll.

31. Throughout the FG, Jesus experiences opposition from two sides: in the first part of the Gospel from the ‘Jews’ (Jn 2:13–22; 5:16–18; 7:1–2, 30–32; 8:37, 59; 10:31; 11:46–54), and in the second part from the ‘world’ (see, for example, Jn 14; 15:18–19; 16:33).

32. Schnackenburg ([1968]1980:258) has a different viewpoint.

33. Augustine (n.d.:§11).

34. See Dodd (1963:156) and Keener (2003:395) for related Jewish and Hellenistic expressions.

36. In that Keener (2003:398) wrote ‘the pillar of fire gave light to Israel alone; the revelation at Sinai frightened the whole world until Balaam explained that God was revealing himself to his children; multiple angels crowned each Israelite at Sinai. Even after their initial acceptance, Israel continued to obey Torah, in contrast to the nations around them, and in many traditions God accepted their obedience as very satisfactory’.

37. Petersen (1993:75) firstly agrees that the FE uses ‘light’ as a moralistic metaphor, but then adds that ‘to say that Jesus himself is the Light that shines/comes into the world is not metaphorical’ (italics in original). He correctly verifies this statement because Jesus ‘is’ the ‘Light of this world’ who also gives the ‘Light of Life’ to those who come to him (Jn 8:12; cf. 1:4; 9:5; 12:46).

38. The contrasting terms in the prologue are rarely semantic opposites or antonyms, such as ‘light’ and ‘darkness’ (see Petersen 1993:20; Lyons 1977:270–290; Palmer 1981:94–100). The FE distinctively creates negative opposites by grammatically negating the positive term or expression, as in his contrast between ‘receiving’ and ‘not receiving’. The occurrences of the negative opposites are quite notable and can be tabled as follows:

39. Although Brown (1966:11) is reluctant to identify the prologue’s structure as chiastic, he notes the correspondence between these phrases.

40. Bear in mind that although there is a human responsibility of accepting Jesus (ἔλαβον αὐτόν/πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτου), it is the Paraclete that enables the believer to do so (Jn 16:7–15).

41. See John 8:41–47 about those who can validly claim to have God as their Father; this designation for God’s people occurs also in John 11:52. The diminutive form ‘little children’ is used in John 13:33; this form is found more frequently in the Johannine epistles: 1 John 3:1, 2, 10; 5:2.

42. Verses 10 and 11 form a parallelism:

44. This construction of πιστεύειν with εἰς τὸ ὄνομα is found in John 1:12; 2:23; 3:18. As in the Jewish Scriptures, ‘name’ indicates more than just the verbal designation of a person. It signifies all that a person represents.

45. See Brown (1966:11, 533–538); and Keener (2003:399) for the possibility that the name of Jesus may be ‘I am’. The reference to ‘name’ was a circumlocution for God.

46. Keener (2003:400–402) briefly describes how different segments of Mediterranean antiquity read ‘children of God’ in different ways. He rounds it off with the reference that it is hardly comparable with the usage of the FG. The FE usage appears closer to Palestinian texts. See also Psalms of Solomon (17:27). The Wisdom of Solomon also declares both the righteous (2:13, 16, 18; 5:5) and Israel (11:10) to be sons of God in The New Jerusalem Bible.

47. Barrett ([1955] 1975:136); Brown (1966:11). See also 1 Cor 8:9 for a translation of ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’.

48. This claim by the FE that Jesus is ‘true’ (τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν) implicitly contrasts him with what is not true or unreliable (Neyrey 2007:43). Jesus is also ‘true’ bread from heaven (Jn 6:32) versus Moses’s manna; his judgement is ‘true’, whereas his audience judges according to appearances (Jn 8:16); he is also the ‘true’ vine (Jn 15:1).

49. See John 12:31–32; 14:2–3, 19–20; 17:24.

50. In the first article of this combination the focus was on the references to the light metaphor prior to the incarnation. In this article the focus is on the references to the light metaphor during and after the incarnation.

FIGURE 1: Speech is in the first person