WHAT DOES “JESUS DIED FOR US” MEAN? Q's and Responses

My previously posted sermon (Feb. 10, 2026) on the above topic raised some good questions that were directed to me personally.  It is likely that others had the same type of questions.  This post consists of the questions and my responses.  I say "responses" rather than "the answers" because the latter sounds too definitive.  I am a finite person with limited understanding, studying the Bible as well as I can.  These are my responses.  As abbreviated as they are, they are still quite lengthy, but I hope that they are helpful. 

Q #1: I really appreciate the distinction between covenant language and atonement language.  God's grace again is the driving force.  But I don't really understand the transition to the blood sacrifice after genuine repentance.  Comments? 

Response: Here is an analogy.   God is beyond this world and our comprehension (God is super-natural).  In a sense, then, we can only speak about God metaphorically, using the language of our world, the natural.  Religious ritual is a richer, more dramatic, more complex way about communicating the nature of God and relationship with God.  Example: ancient temples and sites divided places into more and less sacred space, something which has carried over the architecture of many churches.  The closer one came to a sacred object (altar, inner chamber, image, etc.), the more one was encroaching on the dangerous sacred space of the god and had to be "cleansed," sanctified, and prepared to do so -- often as a priest.  

Most of the religious rituals of ancient Israel were picked up from the cultures around them, but the Israelites de-mythologized them, stripping them of their polytheism and literal beliefs in magic meant to encourage or manipulate the gods.  The adapted Israelite rituals become dramatized, symbolic acts rather than acts of coercive magic.

In Israel, the Temple symbolized God's dwelling place.  Israelites knew God did not literally live there.  Moreover, since sin has a real consequence in terms of impeding our relationship with God, sins were dramatically represented as polluting areas of the Temple, such that people would be alienated from God, and God would eventually "leave" (Ezekiel's messages).  Note that the emphasis was on sin polluting God's place, not the sinner.  The penetrating effect of sin varied: inadvertent sins of the individual did not penetrate into the more sacred areas/parts of the Temple as deeply as deliberate sins of the individual and community.  While there are many different offerings and sacrifices, the ones dealing with sin required a ritual that symbolically cleansed the place/object of pollution such as the outer altar, the holy chamber, or the ark of the covenant (Day of Atonement) in the holiest chamber.  In these rituals, blood is the main symbol.  The polluting effect of sin is uncleanness, chaos, and death.  However, blood, particularly that of a “pure” animal without blemish, was a tangible, manipulable symbol of life that is more potent than death.  Note, too, that the death of the animal is not focal point; an unblemished animal provided the blood necessary for the cleansing atonement.  That "life" sprinkled or poured or wiped on a sin-polluted altar/object of God, symbolized it being cleansed and then reconsecrated, with the result that there was no longer an impediment in one's relationship with God, atonement had occurred. 

My point was about how confession (repentance) is what results in God's graceful forgiveness.  However, to represent that restored relationship, the sin offering had to be offered and the blood applied to remove  symbolically, not magically, the pollution and to return the state of things to normal -- atonement.

The NT authors talk about Jesus bearing/lifting sins just as the Old Testament does about God/Yahweh lifting/bearing sins as a metaphorical expression for forgiveness -- one of many metaphors.  I cannot imagine that a trained rabbi like Paul, when using the sacrificial language of the Temple believed in pagan magic of sins being put onto a scapegoat or person who then "pays the price" to fool or appease the gods

Q #2:  NT:  God has made possible a new covenant in which I am not only forgiven of sin but the way to him has been forever made open through the cleansing blood of the Lamb.  But doesn't, in this case, the cleansing come before the confession, repentance, and forgiveness?  A new relationship to God has been offered to those who entrust their lives to him.  And that new relationship is really new life, a life like the original human life was meant to be and a life that even now we know will go on forever.  Jesus' death is more like the passover lamb shed for the covering and freeing of the Israelites in Egypt, but somehow this all fits together.

Response:  Great insight, question, and observations.  I cannot give a proper reply without giving it the depth it deserves, but superficially I would answer your question about cleansing being first with a qualified "no" that is somewhat covered by your own following comments about a new life. 

As an introductory note, your example about the Passover Lamb, referred to in the Gospels at the Last Supper, is not a sin-cleansing ritual, but is an example of “somehow this all fits together.”  There are two allusions in those NT texts.  First, the Passover event was part of a pre-Mosaic, covenantal act of God, along with the plagues, that revealed to the Hebrew slaves in Egypt God’s sovereign nature and God’s commitment to the Abrahamic covenant by delivering them from Pharaoh.  Blood as symbolic of life (mentioned below) protected them from the Angel of Death.  Celebrating the Passover recalled that deliverance.  Secondly, Jesus refers to his blood as initiating a new covenant (Mark 14:24) such as in the ritual one finds in Gen 15:7-21.  Neither allusion is about cleansing from sin.  However, the “new covenant” will be viewed by the first Christians as including Gentiles.

To put things into a clearer perspective, we modern Christians need to back up a step from our typical Gentile point of view.  Paul thinks about Jesus as the Messiah for the Jews -- those who accept Jesus as Christ are/become the true Israel.  To explain PART of the work of Christ, Paul uses atonement language proper, such as Jesus being the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant (Rom 3:25, the physical "intermediary" between God and the Israelites, often poorly translated metaphorically as "sacrifice" or "propitiation;" but see YLT or NET) and, mixing metaphors, as Jesus being the sin-offering (Rom 8:3; 2Cor 5:21, with the latter sometimes poorly rendered as "sin").  A Jew, of course, would see sacrificial-atonement language as first calling for confession/repentance, a point made in my sermon. 

However, two further co-considerations complicate the matter.  First, Paul sees the total work of Christ (expressed by "faith/faithfulness of Christ") to have brought about, as you note, a new age and the ultimate expression of the "faith/faithfulness of God" and God’s righteousness (Romans 3).  (This is a similar line of thought to the Gospels' presentation of Jesus as inaugurating the Kingdom of God.)  For Paul, to be "in Christ" (participatory theology) means that a person is no longer under the reign of sin and death that has ruled since the time of Adam.  The one who "believes into Christ" belongs to the reign of the Spirit and life (see Romans 5-8).  In this reign, a person is no longer under the guidance of the Law/Torah including sacrificial ritual and the role of the Temple symbolism.  (Think of the participatory theology in the Book/Letter of Hebrews.)  The full work of Christ -- atonement in the technical sense AND much more -- has brought the believer/entruster into a new life and way of living. 

Second, the co-consideration is that the full work of Christ takes us back prior to Moses and the Law to fulfill the promises to Abraham of being a blessing to the nations/Gentiles.  It is important to Paul, regarding the inclusion of Gentiles, to explain to Jewish Christians that God receives people as "righteous" (in right relationship) simply by faith (entrusting oneself to God), citing Hab 2:4 (Rom 1:16-17) and alluding to Abraham and Gen 15:6 (see his discussion in Romans 4 and Gal 3:6-14).  So, again we see that God offers a covenant relationship to Gentiles, just as with Abraham, prior to any "cleansing."  The grace of God is always primary.  However, the notion now of "cleansing" is that it has been taken care of once for all for those in Christ who repent.  It appears to me that the author of 1 John is thinking the same way when he states, "But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous, forgiving us our sins AND cleansing us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn 1:9 NET, caps is my addition).

WHAT DOES “JESUS DIED FOR US” MEAN?

Note: With Lent coming up soon, I decided to post a sermon that I gave to some lay pastors.  It covers points found in some previous devotions, but communicates them differently.

Opening:
Text: Romans 5:6-8.

First, let me offer a disclaimer about my false advertising.  I could never cover the full meaning of the statement, “Jesus died for us.”  What I want to do is address one model of understanding that statement that is popular, but, I believe is non-biblical; and then I want to point us in the right direction for understanding the language about his death.
    I have always warned ALPS students that I am a teacher and not a preacher, so this time will be no different.  But, I think it is OK, because thinking more deeply about Jesus is also worshipful and encouraging.
    I have a difficult topic tonight, but one that is important to me.  I help my wife teach a 1^st-2^nd grade SS class.  (She is the expert.)  It caught my attention that a couple of the children would say that Jesus died for their sins, when they had no clue what that meant.  I got to thinking about how many adults also probably could not give a good explanation.
    As an OT scholar, I try to look at the words of Jesus or of someone like Paul from a Jewish perspective.  I am always pursuing the issue of what the text meant to the original audiences.  But, as I finite and fallible person, my conclusions may be wrong.  So, please, bear with me, think about it, and particularly seek God about it.

Prayer: “O God, you are aware of my foolish sins; my guilt is not hidden from you.  Let none who rely on you be disgraced because of me, O sovereign LORD and king!  Let none who seek you be ashamed because of me, O God of Israel! (Ps. 69:5-6, NET)

Overview
I have been thinking about how people look at the atoning work of Jesus.  Some of the early Church Fathers drew on concepts from their culture.  Anselm in 11th century drew on his model of the feudal system to explain that Jesus was a substitute for us to restore to God the honor he deserves.  In the 16^th cent. Martin Luther viewed Jesus as a substitute who bore our punishment for failure under the Law; and, John Calvin, a lawyer, further defined the atonement in terms of criminal law; Jesus bore our criminal penalties.  These models seem to me to be straying from what a 1^st century Jewish Christian would have thought.
    I want to make two main points.  The first is that the contemporary Church, particularly on a pop-level, focuses too much on the death of Jesus to the exclusion of the broader range of the whole work and ministry of Christ.  The second is that to better understand the meaning of the statement, “Jesus died for my sins,” we need to try to understand what a good Jew like Paul would have thought. 

Focusing on Death to the Exclusion of Jesus' Full Ministry
The first point is simple.  There is too much of a focus on the death of Jesus to the exclusion of his whole work.  Obviously, we talk about the resurrection, because without it Jesus’ death would be meaningless.  I am not minimizing that.  I am expanding.  There is more.  Scripture tells us that through Jesus, the Word of God, all things were created.  But, there is more.  Jesus emptied himself of his divine status, humbled himself, became incarnate and dwelt among us – the Light of the World in our midst.  But, there is more.  Jesus pronounced and taught about the newly inaugurated era of the Kingdom of God, in which you and I now participate.  God’s rule had begun in a new way.  And, Jesus performed signs and wonders that demonstrated that God’s Kingdom was indeed here in his person.  But, there is more.  He showed himself to be the perfect Adam, the perfect Israel, the perfect offering a new covenant, the perfect sin offering, and the perfect High Priest.  But, there is more.  His death was followed by the first fruits of the Resurrection, which proved his words, and which demonstrated his victory over death, sin, and Satan.  But, there is more.  Jesus dwells in believers through the Person of the Holy Spirit, and we dwell in Him as members of His Body.  But, there is more.  Jesus, in his humanity, having been tested and tempted in all ways, identifies with us in our weaknesses and at this very moment and intercedes for you and me before the throne of God.  His goal is that you and I might be made perfect in him and so be prepared for his Second Coming.
    A whole year’s worth of sermons could be preached on each of these points and this is a partial list.  So, I’m sure you get the point: the whole work and ministry of Jesus must be proclaimed to your congregations.

Better Understanding of “Jesus Died for My Sins”
The second point is to address the statement, “Jesus died for my sins.”  Again, we need to look view this wholistically.  Through the combined work of Jesus incarnation, his life and ministry, his death and resurrection, etc. Jesus receives a wide variety of titles that use the figurative language of the OT to capture who he is.  Jesus is savior, redeemer, one who pays a ransom, one who pronounces forgiveness, the seat of atonement, a sin offering, Passover lamb, perfect sacrifice, high priest, the new Man, the victor over death, victor over this world, victor over Satan and the principalities, etc.
    One issue that I repeatedly find in NT studies is that people tend to group most of those titles under the category of “atonement,” but atonement is used in a narrower sense in the OT.  The second issue is after having called most of that “atonement” some people try to settle on the mechanism of atonement in a very narrow way, and one that I do not find to be biblical. 

Penal Substitution
I want to address this model: Jesus is the penal substitute for my sins.  As I mentioned, this model, which has some antecedents that go back to Anselm, was mainly promoted by some leaders in the Reformation.  They held a legal notion of atonement that is foreign to the Temple language of atonement.  For them, God is a Judge, for whom every infraction against his holiness demands a legal penalty, which, because God is so holy, is the legal penalty of death.  In this view, our sins demanded our deaths; they were transferred over to the Son of God; and then God executed justice on Jesus by killing him.  As a result, this model holds, we can have a right relationship with God.  I understand that this model is supposed to show the grace of God: God is both the executioner and the victim.  However, as a scholar who reads the NT through the lens of the OT, my point that is that the NT writers, and particularly Paul, would not have thought about atonement in terms of penal substitution.

Covenant Language Vs. Atonement Language
The first point is that in the OT there is a difference between the language of God offering a covenant relationship and God providing a means of atonement for sin.  We must not overlook the language of covenant.  We need to separate the two.  When God offers a relationship to Abraham, God does not first cleanse him of sin.  There is no judicial punishment for his sinfulness.  God meets Abraham on his level and offers relationship.  It is all about grace.  God “cuts a covenant” with him.  In Gen. 15, the sacrificial animals are cut in half and placed opposite each other; and God, represented by a smoking fire-pot, passing through the bloody pieces to seal his covenant with Abraham.  Jesus, in the Eucharist refers to his blood as the blood of a new covenant.  This is not atonement language.  Then to keep his promises to Abraham, God later saves/rescues/ransoms/delivers Abraham’s descendants from slavery in Egypt.  This is not atonement language.  Then, later God offers a covenant relationship to the rescued Hebrew slaves without any punishment of sin, or sacrifices, or cleansing.  God lowers himself to their level to offer a relationship with him without precondition.  It is all about grace.
    This is important: What then made Abraham righteous in God’s sight?  It was not some substitutionary sacrifice.  We are told clearly in Gen. 15:6 that when Abraham believed God – or better, entrusted himself to God, God counted that as righteousness.  This becomes a key point in Paul’s argument about how the Gentiles, the nations, are included.  In Romans 3 and Galatians 3, Paul argues that those who are of the faith of Abraham, who entrust themselves to the God who raised Jesus from the dead, are children of Abraham, recipients of the promises.  The main point to remember is that God’s offer of relationship is purely by grace and not based on first punishing sins or cleansing someone.

Atonement Language
The second point is that atonement language follows covenant language.  Atonement language deals with our failure to be faithful to our relationship with God.  It is about restoring our covenant relationship with God when it is damage by our sin.  The atonement language of the Temple system was symbolic.  Sin is real, but it is not tangible.  Sin breaks our rapport with God, but again, it is not material.  The symbol system of the Temple was heuristic, educational; it graphically demonstrated the reality of sin.  The Temple represented God dwelling in the midst of his people, but God did not literally dwell there.  Sin symbolically polluted God’s dwelling place and threatened their relationship with God.  So, that pollution, or rot, symbolically had to be cleansed, and that was done through blood because it is the strongest tangible symbol of life.  Blood cleanses pollution.  The person providing the animal did so as a gesture of wanting to be forgiven and restored.  However, the killing of the animal is not the main part.  The main part was that first the sinner through public confession repented, having a heart-felt desire for a restored relationship with God.  Such repentance was greeted with God’s forgiveness, an act of grace.  Still, the Temple had to be cleansed from the pollution of sin to symbolize restored access by the individual or community to the Presence of God.  That is where the blood of the sacrifice comes in.  The animal was not a substitute being punished by death for the sinner.  Rather the pure, lifeblood of an unblemished animal provided the “cleansing agent” that was manipulated on the altar to cleanse away the pollution symbolically.  The whole process of forgiveness and a ritual offering communicated publicly and symbolically God’s mercy and grace.
    Let me give an example of another important ritual, that of the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement, a ritual which is mistakenly taken as a ritual of penal substitution.  Apparently, the Israelites borrowed this ritual from someone like the Hittites and changed it.  The Hittites believed that a person could magically transfer the sins of a person onto a goat, drive that goat into the desert, and fool the offended god or goddess who went chasing after that goat.  But, the Israelites did not believe that.  They did not believe that sins were somehow material and could be transferred by magic onto another person.  God is against such notions of magic.  God cannot not be fooled like demonic “gods.”  The Israelites adopted this ritual symbolically but adapted it to communicate the grace of God.  Again, repentance expressed by fasting and communal confession of sin was main part of the Day of Atonement.  Driving the scapegoat into the wilderness symbolized the removal of those sins to the realm where they belong, a place of chaos and death.  And, application of blood to the cover of the Ark of the Covenant (the mercy seat) symbolized the cleansing of the impediment of pollution between God and the people.
    In this sermon/teaching, I cannot go into all of the NT passages that speak about the death of Jesus and show how they are based on OT language and concepts, but I want to emphasize the symbolic nature of the language.  I am not minimizing sin.  Sin is real.  Sin has consequences.  But, God does not literally forget sins.  God does not literally move our sins as far as the east is from the west.  God does not literally cast our sins into the sea.  God does not literally cover over our sins.  God does not literally blot our sins out of the ledger.  God does not literally wash away sins.  God is not fooled by a goat carrying sins away into the wilderness.  This language was meant to help people realize the reality and seriousness of sin, and, most of all, to illustrate the unfathomable grace of God.
    In Isaiah 43, God is mad at Israel for not understanding this, and God say, “I, I myself, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake; your sins I do not remember.” (Isa. 43:25 Duke).  God forgives for God’s sake; God’s character is merciful and graceful.
    But, again, sin is seriously burdensome.  The main term in the OT that gets translated by the verb “forgive” is nasa.  It means to lift, to bear.  Our sins weigh us down and God lifts them; God bears them.  When Peter states in 1 Pet. 2:24 that Jesus bore our sins on the cross, he is not thinking some kind of magical manipulation of sins for penal substitution.  He is using good OT language.  [This also takes us into language that is borrowed from the Suffering Servant passages in Isaiah.  That is another concept.  Israel could see how the generation of those who suffered the Babylonian Exile bore the sins and punishment of many generations.  Paul picks up on that language as well in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 and Rom. 5.  But, I can cover the main concept but not every text.
    I want to come back to some atonement language in the NT and point out how rich the language is that Paul borrows from the Temple system.  For instance, in Rom. 3: 25, Paul calls Jesus the hilastarion.  Some translators have “expiation” or “propitiation,” but I am convinced that Paul knew the Jewish sacrificial system.  He is thinking of the Day of Atonement.  The hilastarion in the Greek version of the OT was the lid of the ark of the covenant, call the mercy seat.  It was the closest point symbolically connecting God to God’s people.  It was where the lifeblood of the sin offering was applied on the Day of Atonement to rid the pollution of the Israelites’ deliberate sin.  Paul is calling that hilastarion (mercy seat) Jesus.  However, later in Rom 8:3, Paul shifts his metaphorical language and refers to Jesus as the sin offering (hamartia) itself that provided the cleansing blood that was put on the mercy seat on the Day of Atonement.  [Depending on the context, hamartia can be translated generically as “sin” in many places, but in sacrificial contexts it was also the technical term for the “sin offering,” which is clearly what Paul means here.]  To blend language from John and Paul: Jesus, who is the Life, both provides the perfect, pure, cleansing lifeblood of the sin offering and is the point of mediation between God and humanity, the mercy seat.  That is wonderful language of grace. 

Summary
Let me summarize the main points.  The first simple point is that we need to preach the fullness of the work and ministry of Jesus, the fullness of his identity and roles.  Second, when we distinguish between the language of covenant relationship and that of atonement, we see the biblical model that God offers relationship with himself as pure grace.  He does not cleanse the person first.  There is no judicial punishment.  God, in humility condescends to offer himself in communion with us.  When people entrust themselves to God in that relationship, that is considered “righteousness.”  Third, when we do talk about the NT atonement language borrowed from the OT, we must be careful and ask what it meant to a Jew of that time.  When many people outside of the Church hear a pop-cultural, Christian model that everyone’s sins have been transferred to Jesus, who was then executed to exact the price of justice, they do not hear the Good News.  They do not hear a God full of grace.  The bottom line of what I am saying is that the language of the NT that draws on the sacrificial system in the OT was meant to communicate God’s grace and mercy in Jesus.  It is grace from the beginning to the end.

“I AM THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE” (JOHN 11:25-26): TWO CLAIMS

I recently realized when Jesus said that he is the resurrection and the life (John 11:25a) that he was making two, albeit related, claims.  My lack of apprehension was because I had taken for granted translations that have Jesus saying in the next verse (26a), “The one who lives and believes in me will never die” (NET, see how NRSV and NIV also say “never”).  I had wondered what sense that made, since all people die, unless Jesus was referring to those alive at the Second Coming.  However, that concept is not part of the immediate context.  I had never looked at the text closely. 

Context and Explanation
This text is found in John 11:25-26. Just before Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, Martha affirms her belief that Lazarus would come back to life again at the last day.  That is to say she believed in a Jewish concept of a resurrection of the dead at the time of final judgement.  However, her belief was not specifically grounded on Jesus.  Jesus here directs her to trust in him.  Jesus tells her he is (both) the resurrection and the life.  This not a hendiadys, a single concept expressed by two nouns.  Jesus is making two claims, which he then clarifies.  His first statement is,

“The one who is believing into me (= entrusting oneself to) even if he dies will live” (25b).  

That is to say that Jesus is the source of all those who will be resurrected at the last day.  Jesus is one responsible for resurrection of the dead.  That specific claim is then supported by the following sign of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead (11:41-44).  However, Jesus goes on to say,

“And everyone who is living and believing into me will not die into the ages (eis ton aiona)” (26a).

This is where English translations often simply say, “will never die.”  Although this translation is not exactly wrong, it misses the point of the language.  “Into the ages,” particularly following a claim of resurrection, has an eschatological meaning.  Jesus is making a second claim about himself.  The gift of continuing to live forever (“into the ages”) also rests with/in Jesus.  Therefore, having said he is the resurrection AND the life, Jesus in verses 25-26, invites Martha to realize that he is both the source of resurrection of the dead and the source of eternal life.

Another implication is significant.  One might logically assume that being granted life into the ages is subsequent to being resurrected from the dead.  However, since Jesus in both statements uses the present participle (ongoing action) when referring to the “one believing in me” (25b) and “all who are believing in me” (26a), we should understand that the eschatological nature of eternal life begins with the commitment of entrusting oneself to Jesus; that is, it begins in the present.  This same point about “into the ages” and the beginning of eternal life helps to clarify John 8:51. There Jesus says, “whoever keeps my word, will not behold death into the ages.”  The commitment to Jesus’ word in the present results in a life that lasts into the ages (forever).  Whether or not Jesus immediate audience understood it, Jesus was making the eschatological claim of eternal life beginning in the present.

The counterpart, the end result of those not entrusting themselves to Jesus, is implied both here and at 8:51 (see, too, John 6:50-51 and 10:25-30.  That is, they apparently do die “into the ages.”  They suffer an eschatological death - forever.  (See the preceding post about the final judgment being eternal death, the “second death” of Revelation, November 14, 2025.) 

Application
Obviously, Jesus’ invitation to Martha applies to me.  I am to realize that Jesus is both the source of resurrection of the dead and the source of eternal life.  For me, Jesus’ claims here are deeper and more profound than I have realized.  I will not again speak of Jesus being the resurrection and the life as glibly as I have before.  All power over death and the grave belongs to Jesus.  The gift of eternal life belongs to Jesus.  All I can do is worship.

ADVENT: INCARNATION: A PARALLEL ACT TO CREATION, John 1:4-5

John’s prologue to his gospel of Jesus (1:1-5) is set within the theological context of Genesis 1, “In the beginning” (1:1).  That context is important for understanding John.  (See “Advent: And the Word Was God?” 11/30/25.)  John’s narrative proper begins at v. 6 with the introduction of John the Baptist with his announcement of the Incarnation at v 14, when God’s Utterance (the Logos/Word) became flesh.  I have been thinking about 1:4-5 in this prologue:

“In Him [referring back to the Utterance] was Life and the Life was the Light of all people.  And the Light in the darkness shines, and the darkness did not overcome it.”

It strikes me that with the Utterance becoming flesh a parallel act of creation to that of Genesis 1 has taken place.

Proper context
To explain, I have to set to one side a popular doctrine, that of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing).  It was important to the early Church Fathers to espouse creation ex nihilo in order to counter a couple of popular notions of their day, that the cosmos was eternal and that there had always been opposing forces of good and bad or spirit and matter.  They needed to teach, rightly, about God as the Creator who was sovereign.  However, that teaching is not found in the narrative of Genesis 1 and should not be read into it.
    Genesis 1 begins with the same starting point as the earlier ancient Near Eastern creation accounts of the Israelites’ culture, accounts which the biblical writers adopted and then adapted to speak the truth about God and reality.  Those accounts start with the reality that all humans face, chaos that constantly seeks to overpower life.  Illustration: before one can farm land, one must bring order into the physical chaos of the land; and, once one has planted a crop, one constantly has to fight the forces of chaos that would consume the garden.  Survival is a struggle against physical forces of chaos as a well moral chaos.  
    Genesis 1 begins with three elements that are contra life: a topsy-turvy “earth,” that is encased in a watery deep and surrounded in utter darkness (Gen 1:2).  However, God speaks, and the Spirit that breaths out the Utterance of God, speaks light into darkness, order into the chaotic watery deep and topsy-turvy earth, and brings forth life. This is what John is thinking about. 

Application
John is thinking about Jesus as the God’s Utterance by which all things came into being (1:3).  But as John is thinking about how the Utterance (logos) became flesh (1:14), he is recognizing in verse 4-5 how that Utterance will/does function as the Life who is the Light of all people (see, too v. 9).  In other words, it seems to me that John is thinking of the Incarnation as a parallel creational act of God.
    The reality of life as we face it is full of chaos and darkness, physical and moral, just as the “world” was before God began to speak light, order, and life into that chaos in Genesis 1.  In this new beginning work of God, the Incarnation, the Utterance of God became flesh and dwelt with us bringing light, order, and life into our existence which constantly struggles with that which is contra life.  Jesus is this Light, and the forces of chaos, darkness, and death cannot overcome the Light.  Rather, the Light exposes all that is of darkness and done in darkness so that people do not have to walk in darkness (e.g. 8:12).  The Light offers eternal life to those who receive Jesus and entrust themselves (“believe into”) Jesus (1:12).  The Utterance become flesh parallels the work of God in Genesis 1.

Lord, before surrendering to Jesus, I walked in darkness.  Darkness, chaos, and sin still envelop my world, yet by the Light you guide me.  Darkness cannot overcome your Light.  Help me to always desire to stay in the Light.  Amen.