Before John states what he views as the central point of Jesus’ message (verse 5b), he refers briefly (in verse 5a) to the role of we: he and his cowitnesses are mediators who proclaim (compare verses 2 and 3) to you the message they themselves have heard from Jesus. Where it is preferable to use coordinated sentences, one may say something like ‘There is a message from Jesus Christ. We have heard it and (now) proclaim it to you. It is (or He said) this, “God is light…” ’ or ‘We proclaim to you what we have heard from Jesus Christ. His message is that God is light….’
In the message we have heard from him, or ‘the message we heard him utter,’ the pronoun we has exclusive force again. The verb is in the perfect tense to indicate that their hearing in the past is still effective in the present. The pronoun him refers back to “his Son Jesus Christ” in verse 3. This has often to be made explicit.
† Message (here and 3.11) basically means “something a person is sent (or ordered) by somebody to tell to someone else”; then, “what one has to tell to another,” “news.” Where an analytical rendering is to be used, the clause may have to be restructured; for example, ‘something we have to tell (you); we have heard it from Jesus Christ.’
The verb proclaim is better rendered ‘to tell,’ ‘to convey’; or, in order to bring out that the writer functions as an intermediary here, “we pass on” (New English Bible). In some cases it is to be rendered by a causative form of ‘to hear.’
Verse 5b may be rendered either in indirect discourse (Revised Standard Version and others) or in direct discourse (Good News Translation and others); the Greek connective allows both interpretations.
In God is light, the predicate noun light indicates quality; hence, ‘God has as quality light,’ ‘God, light (is) his being.’ But the intended meaning is in some cases better expressed by another construction; compare, for example, ‘God lights’ (verb, meaning ‘functions as daylight’), ‘there is only light in the presence of God.’
† The problem of rendering God will usually have been solved long before the translation of the Johannine Letters is begun. However, where it is still a matter of discussion, the following points should be kept in mind: (1) The term to be used should preferably be a noun, allowing both pluralization, to refer to “the gods of the heathen,” and specification, referring to the “one and only God of the believer.” The use of a proper name, for example, the name of a so-called High-God, is not advisable. (2) Where no appropriate term for God can be found, it is often possible to coin a descriptive phrase built on an existing indigenous expression; for example, ‘the One (in the) above,’ ‘The great Ruler,’ ‘The Eternal Spirit.’ (3) Indigenous terms are, as a rule, better than borrowings. Yet the use of the latter can sometimes not be avoided. In such a case it may be wise to add a qualifying phrase that helps to interpret the meaning correctly, as in, ‘Dios (from Spanish) our Father’ in some American Indian languages.
† Light is a widespread symbol, but its symbolic associations vary in accordance with the system of thought in which it is used. In the Hellenistic culture light was associated with excellence, purity, integrity, wisdom, and so forth, and as such was an appropriate and commonly used symbol for the divine. The opposition light—darkness was parallel to that of heaven – earth, spirit – matter, higher – lower nature, true knowledge (“enlightenment”) – false knowledge, eternity – time, and so forth, and all such pairs of opposites were viewed as aspects of the basic opposition of the good and the bad principle.
John’s adversaries were strongly influenced by these ideas. Their aim was to enter the sphere of light and to escape the earthly sphere and its obligations. This led to indifference towards all those who were not thus “enlightened.” To John many of these symbolic associations of light were known also, but his interpretation of them is entirely different. He views the opposition light – darkness as an ethical one, affecting the character, intentions, and deeds of man, rather than a metaphysical one. Therefore he states again and again in this letter that living in the light means love, justice, and goodness towards one’s brother.
In the receptor culture these symbolic associations of light may be partly, sometimes even mostly, different. Despite such cultural nonconformity a more or less literal rendering of the term should be given, trusting that a fuller understanding of the symbolism will arise from the context and from its exposition in Christian preaching and teaching. It may be advisable, however, to shift from metaphor to simile, ‘God is light, as it were,’ ‘God’s being is like light.’
Renderings of the term often cover also the concept ‘sun(light),’ ‘day(light),’ or may be built on an adjective meaning ‘bright,’ ‘clear.’ The Greek uses one word for two concepts, namely, the source, or cause of light (in the sense of clarity/brightness, here and 2.8), and its effect, or radiance (1.7; 2.9-10). The same is true of English and several other receptor languages, but elsewhere one may have to make a distinction between the two. In that case the former concept has been rendered by such terms as ‘illumination,’ ‘that-which-shines,’ ‘that which causes-light.’ The last mentioned rendering may lead to further restructurings of the clause, such as ‘God causes clearness’ or ‘God makes all things bright.’
In him is no darkness at all: the author reinforces the thought of the preceding clause by adding a negative statement of the opposite thought. This is a stylistic device he uses rather frequently. The clause serves to emphasize that the proposition God is light is an absolute one, without any exception or reservation, or, in other words, that absence of darkness is a quality of God. The force which in has in this context may have to be described; for example, ‘he has nothing in common with darkness (or with what is dark, or with anything dark)’ or “no … at all.” The Greek uses two negative forms which reinforce each other, thus expressing an emphatic negation.
† Darkness: it has been pointed out “that ‘dark’ and ‘darkness’ is a universal symbol, but in different parts of the world it has different meanings and areas of connotation..: (1) the spirit world, (2) the realm of death, (3) ignorance, (4) secrecy and mystery, and (5) moral depravity and willful corruption,” and that possible renderings are often of three types, “(a) the darkness of night, (b) darkness used by shadows, including even the intense shade of a deep forest, and (c) the darkness of an enclosure such as a house without windows or a cave”.
In the present verse the noun is used with a widely encompassing meaning, as a symbol for everything that is not of God. The translator should choose a rendering that may be applied in a wide variety of ways. In several languages a term for the darkness of night (type [a] above) appears to meet this requirement. Where necessary one may shift to ‘what is not light,’ but more radical semantic adjustments are not advisable; compare the remarks on light. Other occurrences can be found in 1.6; 2.8-9, 11.
Quoted with permission from Haas, C., de Jonge, M. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on The First Letter of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1972. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .