The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:5, ESV)

The Gospel of John is a history of some of the things that were said and done when the incarnate Son of God walked the earth. It is a true testimony about past events, but more than an account of events, it is also a testimony about the meaning and significance of these events. It states the correct interpretation of the events described.

To illustrate, in John 12:27-30 a noise sounded from heaven. That was the event. Some of those in the crowd thought it had thundered, while others said that an angel had spoken. Perhaps this was so beyond the expectation of some of the people that they could not believe it. The confusion demonstrates that sensations are unreliable, and serves as an inspired example against empiricism. Nevertheless, some of them thought that they heard words, that an angel had spoken.

In contrast, John is able to provide an accurate and thorough interpretation of the event. First, he gives us the context. Jesus was praying to the Father, who responded with an audible voice from heaven. Second, John also tells us the meaning and significance of the event. Spoken words are noises, but they are noises intelligently arranged in a manner that convey meaning. John records for us not only the fact that noises were heard, but the words that the Father spoke from heaven. Then, he also tells us the reason for the event, as Jesus gave the explanation that the voice was not for his own benefit, but for the benefit of the crowd that was present.

The Gospel of John is not an account of bare events, as in “A noise came from the sky,” but an interpretation of the events, as in “The Father spoke from heaven for the benefit of the crowd in response to Christ’s prayer.” The Gospel does this for the person, work, and doctrine of Christ by presenting in this manner selected episodes from his life, beginning from the pre-incarnate Logos of God. This interpretation of the Christ necessarily goes beyond the observation of the senses, and beyond strict inferences from observable events.

When I say that revelation goes “beyond” the observation of the senses, I do not mean that they are on the same path, only that revelation completes what sensation started. No, I mean that revelation contains a higher kind of information than what sensation can obtain even if we regard sensation as reliable. But sensation is unreliable, and revelation has no necessary relationship with it. Rather, revelation is an entirely different way of knowing, and the only reliable way.

For this reason, it is no exaggeration to say that, logically speaking, one cannot be an empiricist and a believer at the same time. This is because the empiricist cannot know anything, and he cannot believe anything. This includes those who claim to hold revelation as the first principle of their worldview, but then insist that the reliability of sensation is the precondition for any access to revelation in the first place. In reality, then, the reliability of sensation is their first principle. Despite their pretensions, they are nothing more than empiricists, because if they make empiricism their starting point, then they can never be anything other than empiricists. Logically, they cannot be Christians, although we can take the route of charity and assume that these people are inconsistent with their own philosophy. Nevertheless, since they seem to insist that they are intellectually competent and thus alert to the implications of their epistemology, this route is chosen by force out of a reluctance to condemn them.

John is fond of using certain devices and terms to communicate what he wants us to know about Jesus Christ. As he reminds us, Jesus said and did many things. Although all four Gospels record the truth about Christ’s words and deeds, none can record all of them. So when we perceive that there are certain features that seem peculiar to this Gospel, it is because John focuses on these aspects of Christ. Two rhetorical devices that frequently occur in this Gospel are contrast and symbolism (imageries, figurative language, etc.), and they are often used together, so that many contrasts are made by symbolic language. This is in turn associated with the people’s misunderstanding or lack of understanding of these symbolic expressions, thus highlighting their spiritual obtuseness.

There are many examples, but a brief mention of a few of them will help you understand what I am talking about. When Jesus said that a person must be “born again,” he was referring to something spiritual. But Nicodemus could not grasp this and processed it the only way he knew how, by thinking that Jesus was referring to a second natural birth, which of course, did not make sense to him. Then, when Jesus offered “living water” to the Samaritan woman, she thought that he was referring to natural, physical water. After that, when Jesus talked about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, those who heard him failed to perceive the spiritual meaning in this, and thus were offended. Jesus brought a revelation “from above,” and at times used imageries to communicate spiritual truth. But the people who were “from below,” as long as they failed to rise above their earthly mentality, could not perceive his meaning.

In connection with this, I should also mention that John relates the miracles of Jesus as “signs” that illustrate spiritual truths. Of course, when he tells us about the miracles that Jesus did, those miracles really happened. For example, Jesus healed a blind man in John 9. That really happened in the sense that the man was physically blind – he could not see – but afterward, he could. It was a public and physical miracle of healing. However, the healing was then used to illustrate something about spiritual blindness. There are numerous such examples.

Some people might find it strange and incredible that the characters in the Gospel failed to understand what might appear to us as simple symbolic expressions. However, one reason they seem straightforward to us is because of the deep influence that the Christian faith has had in our language and culture. We are not in the exact position as those who heard them the first time. Those who have not been immersed in a Christian influenced background might not find the expressions so easy to understand. As Christian categories and expressions lose their former hold in society, the people will also lose their understanding of the imageries in Scripture. That said, even those who seem to have a Christian influenced background often do not understand nearly as much as we might expect. This includes those who claim to be Christians. Ask ten people in your church what it means to be “born again.” Happy are you, if you are in a church where more than one out of ten can give the correct answer.

It may seem to some people that the use of symbolic imageries and expressions render the Gospel’s meaning a matter of subjective interpretation. This is not the case at all, since the Gospel itself explains the symbolic expressions that it uses. When the Gospel talks about water, light, death, and so on, it tells you what these things mean. So there is no need to resort to your imagination to determine the meaning of an expression, or to make it mean something other than what is intended by the Gospel. We can have a definite and accurate grasp of what the Gospel communicates.

A prominent and recurring contrast that John puts forth at the beginning of his Gospel is the one between light and darkness. The Word, or Jesus Christ, was the light, and he came into a world characterized by darkness. Although Jesus was the light in a unique sense, this set of contrast is applied also between those who follow him and those who do not. Thus Paul calls believers “children of the light.” And when he cautions against improper relations with unbelievers, he writes, “What fellowship can light have with darkness?” In other words, Jesus Christ is the “true light,” and Christians are also called “light” in a derivative sense. The rest of the world, including all non-Christians, are called darkness.

The dualistic nature of the contrast offers instructive implications. First, it divides the world into two groups. This means that there is more than one, and not everyone belongs to the same group. We are not all the children of God. We are not all one big family. And we will not all live happily ever after together. There are spiritual charlatans who deceive many into thinking that we all belong to the light. But even the light that they speak of is nothing but darkness. Remember, even Satan can make himself appear as an angel of light in order to deceive and to mislead. This is why John says that Jesus Christ is the true light.

Then, the dualistic contrast also means that there are not many groups. No matter how people identify and distinguish themselves, in the end there are only two groups, or two kinds of people. You belong to one or the other. You cannot say that you do not like either one, or that both are too extreme, so that you will join a third, or a fourth, or still some other. If you are not a Christian, you are a non-Christian, no matter what you call yourself as a non-Christian. It does not matter whether you are an atheist non-Christian, a Muslim non-Christian, a Catholic non-Christian, or a Buddhist non-Christian. In the end, you are all the same.

As a symbolic term, light is used in an intellectual sense and in an ethical sense. When used in the intellectual sense, it represents wisdom, knowledge, understanding, and clear mental perception. When used in an ethical sense, it represents righteousness, holiness, clean living and transparent lifestyle. In some contexts, both senses are intended at the same time. Accordingly, in the intellectual sense, darkness represents foolishness, ignorance, and a mind that is dull and blind. And in the ethical sense, it represents unrighteousness, all kinds of evil and filth, and shameful living.

Of course, Christ, the Logos, the true light, represents both wisdom and holiness in the most perfect and complete way. He is the very definition of intelligence and righteousness. And these are the qualities that should be exhibited by his followers. In contrast, all non-Christians are characterized by darkness – they are stupid and evil, irrational and unrighteous. This is the contrast that John makes again and again in his Gospel, and it also frequently appears in other parts of Scripture.

Some Christians deny both aspects of the contrast, but it is doubtful that these people are Christians at all, since such a denial reflects a lack of understanding or acceptance of the basic claims concerning the necessity and efficacy of the work of Christ. Then, there are some who acknowledge the ethical aspect of the contrast, but they tend to neglect or undermine the intellectual aspect. This is also very dangerous. The Bible teaches about this aspect of the non-Christian’s condition in explicit terms and with numerous illustrations. To deny or ignore this would render much of the Bible nonsensical, and would amount to a rejection of the biblical doctrine on the fall of man and a repudiation of the work of Christ in redemption. If you do not affirm that all non-Christians are both stupid and sinful, both unintelligent and unrighteous, and if you do not affirm that Christians are made wise and holy in Christ, then you should examine yourself to see if you truly grasp or believe the gospel.

There are those who call themselves Christians, but who criticize this kind of talk as unkind. Now, if you refuse to say that all non-Christians are sinful, then you are not even a Christian. You are just a non-Christian criticizing the Christian faith as an outsider. However, if you say that all non-Christians are sinful, but refuse to also say that they are stupid, although this is also the clear teaching of Scripture, then you are at least a hypocrite. Who told you that non-Christians are intelligent? The Bible calls them fools. You have been deceived by the non-Christians, who present themselves to you as intelligent. As for me, I am not ashamed of the gospel, for through faith in Christ, I am saved from both intellectual and ethical darkness. The God who said “Let there be light” at the time of creation has caused the light of Christ to shine in me also. He removed me from the kingdom of darkness and placed me into the kingdom of his Son. This is what happens at conversion. This is what it means to become a Christian.

Our verse says that “the darkness has not understood” (NIV) the light. The verb can refer to grasping with the mind, but also to seizing something to overcome it. Thus some translations say “the darkness has not overcome” the light. Some commentators argue for one or the other, while others suggest that the ambiguity is deliberate. Both aspects of the conflict between light and darkness will play out before us in the course of the Gospel’s narrative of Christ. They correspond to the intellectual and ethical emphases I just mentioned.

Non-Christians are unintelligent. Although their intellectual defect applies to all areas of their thinking, it is most evident when they are asked to engage in spiritual discussions. They fail to understand even the most basic spiritual concepts, and the more they try to argue against the truth, the more foolish they appear. They are also unrighteous, so that they would not only resist the light in thought and speech, but also in their actions and policies. The Gospel shows us that they would go so as far as to murder the Lord Jesus.

Of course, these two distinguishable factors in non-Christians are nevertheless inseparably related. Their lack of wisdom contributes to their evil nature and perpetuates it, and their evil nature maintains their prejudice against the truth. It is most important that we acknowledge this conflict, that there is this necessary hostility between Christians and non-Christians, and also the dual nature of this conflict, that it entails the intellectual and the ethical. This is necessary for a proper understanding of the Gospel of John, as well as for a proper understanding of our conflict with the world.

Non-Christians are stupid, so they do not understand what we say, and they do not perceive that we are right. All of their arguments and refutations are foolish and irrational. And they are sinful, driven by their wicked dispositions, so that when they cannot refute us, they persecute us. But our verse says that the darkness has not overcome the light. The light always wins, and it always wins just by being what it is. However, this does not mean that light is passive, since it always attacks darkness. It does this naturally, actively, and constantly. Light is always invading darkness, always destroying darkness. It attacks just by shining. This is what Jesus came to do, to destroy the works of the devil. And this is what Christians should do by their very nature as the children of the light.

In one of his sermons, George Whitefield said, “It is very remarkable, there are but two sorts of people mentioned in scripture: it does not say that the Baptists and Independents, nor the Methodists and Presbyterians; no, Jesus Christ divides the whole world into but two classes, sheep and goats: the Lord give us to see this morning to which of these classes we belong. But it is observable, believers are always compared to something that is good and profitable, and unbelievers are always described by something that is bad, and good for little or nothing.” Let me restate this. There are only two kinds of people: Christians and non-Christians. The Bible always describes the non-Christians as bad and good for nothing.

If this is still unclear, let me say it again. If you are a non-Christian, the Bible likens you to trash to be burned at the dump. You think you are smart? You are stupid. You think you are useful? You are worthless. You think you have value and significance? You are a piece of human garbage. Jesus compares you to weeds among wheat. You are nothing but a parasite, a hindrance to all that is good and fair. You contribute nothing worthwhile to humanity. Once I was like you, but Jesus Christ rescued me from the garbage dump, and made me a prince and a servant in his kingdom. But my status is derived. Even now, without Jesus Christ, I would have nothing, I would be nothing. I would be filthy like you, useless like you. Jesus Christ is your only hope. He is anyone’s only hope. Believe and be saved. Disbelieve and be damned.

This sort of preaching is unforgivable today. This is often the case even among those who identify themselves as Evangelical or Reformed, who complain about the diluted gospel of seeker-friendly churches, and who with great passion urge believers to preach the word of God. Well, this is the word of God. Are you going to preach it or not? Or are you going to suppress the truth under the guise of social civility and academic courtesy? And are you going to support me when I preach like this? Or are you going to distance yourself from me, or even criticize and persecute me? If you oppose what I preach and the way I preach it, then you are nothing but a hypocrite. You say you preach the gospel, but you refuse to tell the truth about mankind, and about the necessity and the power of Christ for salvation to anyone who believes.

You say that we must answer the world with gentleness and respect, but you allow the world to define these virtues for you. Then you criticize me for ignoring this unbiblical standard, even this pagan ethic. I am suspicious of you. It is as if you have never read the Bible or the prominent preachers that you claim to admire and follow, or it is as if you have never paid attention. Have you read the preaching of Elijah, Jeremiah, Jesus, Peter, Paul? Have you read the sermons of Augustine? Calvin? Luther? Whitefield? You are the one who is out of line. You are the reason why the church is weak and unfocused. You are like the Pharisees who would polish the tombstones of dead prophets, but who would have murdered them with their bare hands if they had lived when they prophesied.

The Christian faith teaches that all non-Christians are intellectually feeble and ethically bankrupt, and it teaches this in vivid terms. This is how the Logos sees the world. If you do not acknowledge this and align yourself with it, then you cannot understand redemption and conversion. You do not understand the gospel. How then can you claim to believe it? How can you claim to preach it? Do you even like the Christian faith, or is your faith in Christ just a big misunderstanding? What, have I made you angry? What are you going to do about it? Are you going to throw the Bible at me? Which one? The real one, or the romanticized version of it that exists only in your imagination?