Back-to-back opposite statements in John 3:20-21 speak to me about the nature of truly good “works.” Verse 20 states:
For those who practice base [common, worthless] things hate the light and do not come into the light, so that their works might not be exposed.
Comments: 1) The word for “practice” (prasso) tends to emphasize something that is repeated as opposed to a specific act. 2) Several translations call the practices “evil,” when the term here (phaula) is not the word for “evil” (poneros) as in v 19. Since v 20 picks up on that thought about evil deeds and light, the author could be using phaula as a synonym for “evil;” however, my guess is that the author has broadened the category. Something that is phaula is rather base, common, worthless. “Evil” would be a subset. 4) The word “exposed” (elencho) has the sense of being exposed in a negative way for reproof.
The way verse 21 starts, the reader expects it to give a parallel but opposite balance about those come into the light:
But the one who does the truth, comes to the light, so that that one’s works might be revealed…
However, the parallel balance does not stop there. “Works” is qualified by the clause, “that in/by God they are produced.” Verse 21 might awkwardly be translated:
But the one who does the truth, comes to the light, so that that one’s works (because they are produced by God) might be revealed.
Comments: 1) “Does” (poieo) may be used generally, but in distinction from “practice” (prasso) in v 20, it can speak of something new, specific. 2) “Does the truth” is an interesting idiom. Truth (aletheia), in John’s gospel is something that comes to be in Christ (1:14, 17; 14:6) and characterizes the Spirit (14:17; 15:26; 16:13). It is of the divine realm. It is absolute. 3) The word for “produced” (ergazomai) emphasizes effort and indicates here where the locus of the effort or labor is, "in/by God."
Main point: The qualification of one’s works/deeds in v 21 by “that in/by God they are produced,” places the credit for acts of truth in the hands of God. When the contrast is fully made between these two lines, the reader sees that our base, worthless, deeds are our own doing (v 20); however, the deeds “we” do in the truth are actually produced by God (v 21). God gets the credit, not us. If we were to apply this to our concepts of success in life, the lesson would be: Worldly “success” is a product of our efforts. Moreover, when it is brought into divine Light, it is exposed as worthless. To the contrary, success that matters eternally – perhaps a gracious word or an act of righteousness – is done by God through us. There is no room for pride. In fact, we might not even see it as divine “success.”
My following thought is not said in this text, but I think that although there is no room for pride, there is room for joy – joy that God condescended to use us for eternal purposes. That is amazing! Perhaps one could read this thought into John 15:1-17. There we learn that abiding in Jesus and his love allows Jesus’ joy to be in us. When we participate in what Jesus is doing, we participate in Jesus’ joy.
Lord, shine your Light on my prideful heart that likes to give me credit for doing “good.” Help me to see that all that is of eternal value is wrought in/by You. It would be an honor to be used by You for Your glory and Your joy. May it be so. Amen.
Loved your delving into Greek details; keep it up. Because v 19 introduces "evil" deeds (poneros) and because John's gospel loves using synonyms, I would probably see phaulos in v 20 as synonymous, rather than trying to figure out some nuance (worthless vs evil). Also, since John seems to love phrases such as doing-believing-living-obeying "in" [Gk en] God-Spirit-Christ, I would translate "because they [deeds] are done in God," which thought aligns well with John's in-Christ/God mysticism.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Kent! I agree that John likes to use words in the same semantic domain. John 21:15-17 comes to mind, over which I still ponder (15 Q: agapao, A: phileo; 16 Q: agapao, A: phileo; 17 Q: phileo, A: phileo). So, I agree that “evil” (poneros, v 19) and “worthless” (phaula, v 20) might be used here as synonyms. Another observation, though, comes to mind. Since John uses the creational polar images of light and darkness, one should still think of poneros and phaula as belonging to the same realm of darkness (chaos) that includes sin, sickness and death, whereas light, which comes from God, is the realm of life and truth. And, I agree that “en God” could mean “in” or “by.” I was ambivalent about that. On the one hand, I lean toward “in” because of John’s participatory theology (e.g. John 15). On the other hand, I lean toward “by” because a passive verb (“produced” ergazomai) is often an indicator of divine activity. I like leaving it ambiguous in English at least. Therefore, I would refine my reflection with the observation that what we do is either done in the darkness or in the light, and that which is done in the light is done in/by God (participation theology).
ReplyDelete