“While you have the light, believe in the light, in order that you may become sons of light.” John 12:36 NASB
Sons of light – What is “4QMMT”? It is a manuscript, in fragments, found in Cave 4 at Qumran. Why is this important for Yeshua’s statement in John 12:36? Because the same term, “sons of light,” is found in this manuscript dating from the first century BCE. In other words, Yeshua did not make up this idea. It was already in use more than 100 years before He was born. The same phrase has extensive use in the manuscript “War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness” from Cave 1. This manuscript is an apocalyptic prophecy, much like the book of Revelation. It is about those who are followers of the one true God, YHWH, followers who embrace Torah as members of some of the tribes of Jacob, and their battle against the evil powers represented by Edom, Moab, Philistia and others opposed to God’s rule.
What does this mean for our exegesis? It means that “sons of light” already had contextual meaning when Yeshua used the phrase. It means that Yeshua probably knew of the Qumran community and its beliefs. It means that the audience that heard this phrase would not have associated the meaning with some new religious idea. They would have heard Yeshua speaking about the Essenes, the ones who left Jerusalem and moved into the desert in order to remain pure. It means that “sons of light” is associated with a battle for the rule of YHWH according to YHWH’s revelation in Torah. It means that “sons of light” are those who oppose any power that attempts to subvert YHWH. It means that “sons of light” has nothing to do with Christianity.
Yeshua speaks to an audience that is saturated with first century Jewish thinking. The words He uses communicate ideas that are understood by this Jewish audience. He is not speaking to us. The words He uses might be applied to us, but the meaning of those words must be found in the culture and time of the original audience. When we take the phrase “sons of light” to mean “Christians who love Jesus,” we remove all the contextual meaning of the words from their origin. We strip them of making any sense at all to the people Yeshua addressed. Essentially, we re-invent what He said to fit our view.
If we realize that “sons of light” refers to the people who are in a cosmic battle for God’s claim of sovereignty over all the earth according to the teachings of the Tanakh, things change. We have to account for the element of Torah purity. We have to recognize the background of kingdoms of idolatry. We have to see Yeshua’s claim associates Himself with the Essene “Teacher of Righteousness.”
But then there is Leon Morris: “This reminds us that throughout this discussion Jesus Himself must be understood as the Light. . . . Therefore there is not only the question of illumination, but also of faith. Men must put their trust in Him. This makes an important difference from the Qumran texts. There is a good deal about the light and ‘the sons of light’. But men there are not called upon to perform an act of faith in their Lord in order to become ‘sons of light’. They are apparently such because they belong to the good spirit. The major difference between the scrolls and the New Testament is Christ. This is not peripheral but central. Men must believe on Him. . . . ‘Sons of light’ are accordingly not merely men with a slight interest in the light, but men whose lives have been so revolutionized that they maybe characterized with reference to light.”[1]
Morris’ view is thoroughly Christian and, as such, applies what Yeshua says to the Christian community. The application is certainly good and necessary. And his point about the difference between the scrolls and the New Testament is important. But if Yeshua is central to the writings of the Brit Hadasha, does this phrase “sons of light” not also imply that the movement of the Essences to recapture strict Torah obedience is also part of His thinking and the thinking of His audience and is therefore assumed of men who will become “sons of light”? No matter how you answer this question, you are now confronted with a contextual problem. Just how much of what Yeshua said needs to be understood in the light of His time and culture?
Topical Index: sons of light, Qumran, Teacher of Righteousness, John 12:36
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John
Hmmm
Very interesting, I’ll have to get a copy of that book
Jim Morrison’s song “Light My Fire” always had a very otherworldly effect on me in the 60’s
And this morning I added to a position in my favorite stock, Alliance Fiber (AFOP)
It’s a new fiber optic product that allows information to travel at the speed of light
It’s a very volatile stock and not for the faint of heart
Do the words of Scripture
capture “what’s happening now”
or where they penned for all eternity?
Yes. And Yes. God’s Word cuts both ways.
Moses’ words still ring true.
Jesus’ words do so also.
Anciently uttered, yet poignantly fresh,
vital and true to this day.
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words
will never pass away.” Mat 24:35
“Be diligent to present yourself approved to God,
a worker who does not need to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.” 2 Tim 2:15
God’s Word has been given to us for our understanding.
We must be careful to not “think we know”
when our calling is “to know”.
Although the term logos, “Word” is linked with the immanent divine spirit that prevades and orders the cosmos in Stoic philosophy, there is no other hint of philosophic terminology in this gospel. Contrsts such as “above”/ “below”; “heavenly”/”earthly” do not function the same way they are used in Platonic philosophy. Some of the links between John and the Hermetic writings (such as the use of logos in creation chapter 1.5-6) are attributed to the incorporation of Genesis into the syncretistic system of the Hermetic work. The notion of rebirth in chapter 13 is generally thought tp presume a salvific vision in which the initiate is transformed into deity. John, however, never suggests the believer is transformed. Only that Yeshua has a divine relationship with the father. As wscholars recover the diversity of 1st century Judaism, this background comes more focused and distinct. Old Testament texts and images appear to be woven into the discourses (see G. Reim, Studien zum alttestamentlichen Hinterground des Johannesevangeliums SNTSMS 22; Cambridge, 19740) References to Jacob (4:5-6; 1:51), Abraham (8:31-58) support this. The bread of life narrative (6:30-59 contrasts with midrasim (P. Borgen, Bread from Heaven [NovTSup 10; Leiden, 1965]. Other references appear to be taken from the targumic traditions (G. Reim, BZ 27 [1983] 1-13). John 1:17-18 appears to be a reference to Mosaic tradition. The typology of the serpent in 3:14, the discourse on the mana/bread of life, the imagery of the people murmuring against Yeshua in John 6, and the subordination of Moses to Yeshua in 5:45-47 and 9:28-29 combine in the affirmation that Yeshua is the Mosaic Prophet of Deut 18:15 (1:21,25; 4:19; 6:14; 7:40).
Contrasts such as “above”/ “below”; “heavenly”/”earthly” do not function the same way they are use in Platonic philosophy.
Hmmm
I think it is relatively easy to see the light, but the broken Hallelujah is more difficult
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmbQEQltOwM
Maybe there’s a God above
But all I’ve ever learned from love
Was how to shoot at someone who outdrew you
It’s not a cry you can hear at night
It’s not somebody who has seen the light
It’s a cold and it’s a broken Hallelujah
The fact that the term “sons of light” had a larger contextual meaning is a fine one but it does not necessarily mean that is how the writer of the “Gospel of John” used it. It may have been with the purpose of redefining/expanding the meaning of the term that was in mind by its use.
Both the book of Daniel (Dan. 12:1 -4) and Matthew (Matt.13:43 and 24:21-31) speak of a “conclusion of a system of things” which includes righteous ones shining brightly. The writer of the Qumran “Sons of Light” narrative May have been drawing from the same source (Daniel) as the gospel writers. Thus it doesn’t necessarily follow that they were quoting or using the Qumran community’s term.
Simply stated, Light is that which reveals.
~ For it is God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ ~ (2 Corinthians 4:6)
~ This is the message we have heard from Him and declare to you: God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all ~ (1 John 1.5)
~ When Jesus spoke again to the people, He said, “I AM the Light of the world. Whoever follows Me will never walk in darkness, but will have the Light of life ~ (John 8.12)
~ For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the LORD. Walk as children of light ~
(Ephesians 5.8)
So, let me get this straight, we are to believe that Messiah’s 1st century audience were so well versed in the doctrines and words of a fringe Essene cult in the desert to understand the “sons of light” reference, but were not spiritual enough to understand another common Hebraism used by many Jewish writers that refers to Satan as being the “ruler (or prince) of this world”? ( RE: yesterday’s TW; see also T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 16. 2. & Sanhedrin, fol. 94. 1. & Cholin, fol. 60. 1.) Come on Skip.
“Satan as being the “ruler (or prince) of this world””
Hi Michael and Arnella Stanley,
It seems to me that God is ruler of this world
And in Matt 4:7, Jesus is led by God “the Spirit” into the desert to be tempted
By the Devil
But the Devil does not seem to have much power over Jesus in Matt 4:7
Ha Satan seems considerably more powerful and closer to God in Job
But Ha Satan cannot “rule over” Job
The “fringe” Essene cult wasn’t so fringe in the first century, as Yeshua’s own words imply. And yes, they may have understood “ha-satan” in the way you suggest, but the preoccupation with Satan and his “power” is not a biblical theme. Christian thought is much more middle ages than the Jewish idea. After all, in Judaism of the first century, what “power” does ha-satan really have?
I appreciate the specific examples. Sometimes, after you have studied all of this – you say things like ‘scholars have established…..”, or “there are many examples of 1st/2nd century…….”.
Please bring more of these examples to the table for us to pass around and digest. Thanks.