Introduction:
One
of the distinguishing characteristics of the Gospel of John is the frequent use
of dualism. In the Fourth Gospel, we
find the several beliefs in two worlds: for instance - the world above and the world below. The world above is
contrasted with the world below. The world below signifies the inhabited
earth which has rejected the revelation of Christ. Apart
from these, several other two contrasting realms are presented in the Fourth
Gospel such as the light and darkness, life and death, truth and
falsehood, flesh and spirit. What are these dualism all about? Where does
it begin its conception? And what are the different types of dualism found in
the Gospel of John? In this paper we shall try to extract the meaning of
Johannine dualism and its background and in what way did John employ them
distinctively.
1.
Background of Dualism:
The term “dualism” refers to two substances
or principles that comprise reality. This term does not appear in the Bible,
but the ideology associated with dualism often underlies much biblical study.[1] The dualistic antitheses such as light and darkness
(Jn. 1:4f, 3:19, 8:12, 11:9f, 12:35, 46), truth and falsehood (Jn. 8:44), life
and death (Jn. 5:24, 11:25), above and below (Jn. 8:23), freedom and servitude
(Jn. 8:33, 36) etc are found in John Gospel. These are also found in the Qumran
texts.[2]
Leonhard Goppel assumed that the Christians coming out of these circles developed
this language and with it the Johannine tradition as well.[3] According
to R. E. Brown, there are two principles, in the Qumran literature, created by
God-the prince of lights (also called the spirit of truth and the Holy Spirit)
and the angels of darkness (the spirit of perversion). In this manner, in
John’s thought was that Jesus has come into the world as the light to overcome
the darkness. So, not only the dualism but also its terminology is shared
by John and Qumran.[4] Donald
Guthrie states that in the Qumran literature, there is a clash between the
spirit of truth and the spirit of perversity, between the children of light and
the children of darkness, between the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked
Priest. There is also a cosmic aspect, for the overthrow of the spirit of
perversity is predicted for the Day of Judgment.[5] In
John’s Gospel, the antitheses such as light, truth, life all come from above
while darkness, falsehood, death belong to the world below. This is also
presented in the prologue which is supported by many sayings in the Gospel. In
John’s view the sphere above is the sphere of the Spirit and that below is the
sphere of the flesh.[6] According to R.E. Brown, the idea dualism was not rooted in the Old
Testament, but ultimately in the Zoroastrianism.[7] Dualism is commonly attributed to
the Persian (Zoroastrian) influence.[8]
Dualism in Zoroastrianism[9] is
both cosmic and moral. There is the ongoing spiritual battle between good and
evil, and the mind’s moral battle between righteous and sinful behaviours.
Zoroastrians believe in an afterlife, they believe the human soul is judged by
God, (Ahura Mazda) and that those who chose good in this earthly life will go
to the best existence while those who chose evil would go to the worst
existence – heaven or hell.[10]
It is sometimes objected that modified dualism is to be found in the OT, and
that the dualism of John may have been Modified dualism arises from the Persian
influence of dualism. There is no developed or systematic expression of
dualistic position in the OT such as we find in John’s Gospel.[11]
2.
Johannine and Qumran Dualism:
There
are striking similarities and also differences between the Johannine and the
Qumranian dualism. In the Qumran there are two Spirits, the Spirit of truth and
the Spirit of deception that draw humanity into two camps i.e. the children of
light and the children of darkness. The Johannine employ many of the same
dualistic pairs and envision Jesus as the light of the World (1:9).[12]
Darkness has not overcome the light, and as many as receive Jesus as the light
receive the power to become the children of God (1:12). Following the way of
Jesus is to be walking in the light (8:12; 12:45), and the Holy Spirit convicts
the world of both sin and of righteousness (16:8). In Qumran the conflict is
between two spirits, both of whom were created by God. In John the conflict is
between the world and its ruler, and the incarnate Jesus.[13]
While there are similarity between the children of light and children of
perversity (darkness), in John these do not represent two spirits ruling over
two distinct classes of people. However the incarnate Logos is the light, and all men and women are in darkness but
are invited to come to the light. Furthermore, the coming of light into the
darkness of the world is a piece of realized eschatology, utterly different
from anything in Qumran theology.[14]
In Qumran the children of light are those who dedicate themselves to keep the
Law of Moses as interpreted by the Teacher of Righteousness, who separates
themselves from the world (sons of perversity). In John the children of light
are those who believe in Jesus and thereby receive eternal life. For Qumran
darkness is disobedience to the Law; for John darkness is rejection of Jesus.[15] These
are some of the similarities and differences which are to be found mentioned in
Johannine and Qumran dualism.
3.
Johannine Dualism:
In the Fourth Gospel, the two different worlds are
represented by two sets of forces. The force from above is Christ who is
opposed by this world. The force from above is one (1:1, 14; 17:3, 21) but the
force from below is manifold (8:23f; 13:27; 12:31).[16] There
are also light and darkness, flesh and spirit, truth and falsehood. We shall
look at some of the themes presented in the Gospel of John.
3.1.
Light and Darkness:
Light
and darkness are seen as two principles in conflict with each other. The light
shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it (1:5). Jesus himself
is the light (8:12) and has come that people may not remain in darkness but may
have the light of life and be enabled to walk in the light so that they may not
stumble (8:12; 9:5; 11:9; 12:35, 46). Those who receive
the light become children of light (12:36). However, in spite of the fact that
the light has come into the world, people loved darkness rather than light and
refused to come to the light because their deeds were evil. Whoever does the
truth comes to the light that his or her true nature may be disclosed
(3:19-20). In John the evil is hatred of the light - unbelief in Jesus.[17]
According
to Bultmann, light in John means the daylight in which human being is able not
only to orient him about objects but also to understand him in his world and
find his way in it. But the true light is not the light of literal day rather
the one who is in above. Because of this true light, human being is given the
possibility of a genuine self-understanding him as God’s creature.[18]
Darkness is nothing other than shutting one’s self up against the light. When
the world shuts itself against the light it automatically rebels against God,
making itself independent of the Creator, which is against the truth.[19] In
John Gospel the use of light and dark is concentrated in 1:4,9, 3:19-21,8:12,
9:5, 39-41, 12:46. The theme of these verses is “the light shines in the
darkness.” This challenge to the darkness causes divisions as people leave the
darkness for the light. But those who belong in the darkness Jesus’ claims,
deny the meaning of his miracles, deny the witness of those who believe,
retreating into the darkness of falsehood and death. Taking the instance of
Judas, he divides himself from the community of believers. The evangelist notes
significantly, “and it was night” (13:30). Judas withdrew into the darkness and
his doom and destruction was sealed.[20]
Philip
Wheelright observes that “the logos incarnate
in Jesus is the life [that] was the light of men (1:4), and where there is light
there is life and the perception of Life.”[21]
John asserts from the beginning that the logos is and always was the exclusive source of
light for men. The darkness has not overcome it (1:15). John the Baptist was
not the light but bore witness to it (1:8), for the true light (1:9).[22] The
greatest of God’s acts in regard to darkness is his spiritual rescue of people
from darkness through the work of Christ. God himself is light and in him there
is no darkness at all (1 Jn 1:5). Christ is a light that shines in the
darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it (Jn 1:5). Whoever follows Jesus
will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life. Jesus came as
light into the world, so that everyone who believes in him should not remain in
the darkness (Jn 12:46).[23]
John’s Gospel alone has the self-predication formula, “I am the light of the
world” (8:12; 9:5; cf. 12:35–36, 46). All persons must receive their light from
Jesus the “true light” in order to become the children of light.[24]
3.2.
The Two Worlds- above and below:
The
dualism of John is primarily vertical: a contrast between two worlds - the
world above and the world below. “You are from below, I am from above; you are
of this world, I am not of this world” (Jn. 8:23). In John, “this world” almost
always stands in contrast with the world above. “This world” is viewed as evil
with the devil as its ruler (16:11), Jesus has come to be the light of this
world (11:9). The authority of his mission does not come from “this world” but
from the world above i.e. from God (18:36). When his mission is completed, he
must depart from “this world” (13:1).[25]
The same dualism is obvious in the language of Jesus descending from heaven to
earth and ascending again to heaven. “No one has ascended into heaven but he
who descended from heaven” (3:13). Jesus has come down from heaven to fulfil a
mission that he received from God (6:38). He came down as the living bread. If
anyone eats of this bread, she or he shall never die but have eternal life
(6:33, 41, 50, 51, 58). When his mission is fulfilled, he must ascend to heaven
where he had come (6:62).[26]
3.3. Flesh and Spirit:
Another
dualism found in John is between flesh and Spirit. Flesh belongs to the realm
below; Spirit
to the realm above. The flesh represents the weakness and impotence of the
lower realm. The flesh is not sinful, for “the Word became flesh and dwelt
among us” (1:14). Flesh is synonymous with humanity.[27] However, the flesh is limited to
the lower realm; it cannot reach up to the life of the world above. People must
be born from above. Being born from above is further described as being born of
the Spirit. Humans in themselves are weak and mortal, only by an inner work of
God's Spirit can they either understand or experience the blessings of the
heavenly realm (3:12). Eternal life is the gift of God's Spirit; in the light
of eternity, the flesh is of no avail. It cannot enable a person to attain to
life eternal (6:63).[28] Another dimension in
the Johannine dualism is about worship. In John 4:24, it is seen that God is
Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth. Worship in
spirit does not mean worship in the human Spirit in contrast to worship by the
use of external forms and rites; it means worship that is empowered by the
Spirit of God. The contrast here is not so much between the world above and the
world below as between worship in the former time and worship in the new era
inaugurated by Jesus. The contrast is between worship in Spirit and truth as
compared with worship in Jerusalem. The Spirit raises men above the earthly
level, the level of flesh, and enables them to worship God properly.[29]
The opposition between flesh and Spirit primarily
relates to the dependence of humanity in relation to God as Spirit, Source, and
Ruler of all of life. In that connection flesh does not denote what is lower in
humankind but the whole human person, physical as well as spiritual.[30] Flesh in
John is put in contrast to the sphere of God or Spirit. So the flesh here is
the natural man as such, the non-regenerated man, who is not capable of
entering the Kingdom, which belongs to a completely different order of being.
The absolute impossibility of the flesh to come to the life of the Spirit is best
expressed in Jn. 6:63-64, where the Spirit is said to vivify, and the flesh is
said to be of no avail in this respect.[31]
3.4. Truth and Falsehood:
The basic meaning of the truth in John, according
to Bultmann, is God’s reality, since God is the Creator; he is the only true
reality. Jesus does not merely tell the truth but he himself is the truth (14:6). So, truth is God’s
very reality revealing itself in Jesus. If truth is the reality of God as the
only true reality, then the lie which
denies this reality is not merely a false assertion. Rather, the liar withdraws from the reality and
falls into the unreal, death.
In rebelling against God, the world produces a specious reality which actually
is a lie. In this case, the world stands for the falsehood.[32] The
Greek word avlhqeia has
a primary application to words or statements, with the meaning ‘truth,’ as
opposed to falsehood. The Gospel of John most frequently uses the language
of truth. John uses truth vocabulary in its conventional sense of opposite of
falsehood. He also develops his own particular meaning, where truth refers to
the reality of God the Father revealed in Jesus the Son. The
Father is the truth. His eternal reality is ultimate reality.[33] According
to John, his truth can only be accepted through faith in Jesus as the one who
comes down from heaven. Thus the time has now come when true worshippers will
worship the Father only as revealed by Christ (4:23–24). However, as ultimate
reality, God the Father is the only standard by which all truth or falsehood,
light or darkness are measured in this world (5:33; 8:31–32, 42–47).[34]
In John 8:40-46, we find that it is the truth, the revelation of eternal
reality that Christ declares. On the contrary, the devils not simply “tell
lies” but utters the “Lie” the final denial of divine reality. He does so
because he has no standing ground in the world of eternal reality, and so there
is nothing in him which corresponds with the eternal reality.[35]
3.5.
Life and Death:
In John 5:24, it reads, “Very truly, I tell you,
anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and
does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life.” Jesus
enters the realm of death and by doing so transfers men out of it into life. Jesus
affirms that anyone who hears His word and believes in the Father who sent Him
has eternal life here and now. The Greek verb used to express the passing “from
death to life” is the same verb that is used to refer to Jesus’ leaving this
world to go to the Father in the heavenly world (13:1).[36]
Such passing involves a complete break with one realm of life and entrance into
another. The one who believes is transferred from the natural realm of life
controlled by death to the divine realm of life dominated by light (3:21) and
love (1 John 3:14). The only One who can perform such a resurrection, a passage
from death to life, is God.[37] In
the narrative of the raising of Lazarus, the doctrine of eternal life is stated
in two forms. First, He who believes in me, even as he dies, will come to life
(John 11:25). This may be taken as a confirmation of the popular eschatology as
enunciated by Martha: faith in Christ gives the assurance that the believer
will rise again after death. But the second statement is not the simple
equivalent of this: Everyone who is alive and has faith in me will never die
(John 11:26).[38]
This implication is that the believer is already living in a sense which
excludes the possibility of ceasing to live. The miracle of Lazarus’ bodily resurrection,
which anticipates the final resurrection, is a symbol of the real resurrection
by which a man passes from a merely physical existence, which is death, into
the life which is life indeed, and which is proof against the death of the
body.[39] It
is also clearly seen in John 8:51 which say, to those who
believe in Jesus, he gives life and delivers them from death, the consequences
of being in bondage to sin.
3.6. Love and Hate:
Love and hate form another dualism in John’s Gospel
that there are those who love and others who hate. It is a matter of loving and
hating appropriately. In John 3:19-21 it is written, “...but men loved darkness
instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates
the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be
exposed...” At times love and hate can express the Johannine dualism because
what the believers are, and love is hated by the world (Jn. 15:18-25, 17:14).
Likewise what the world loves is rejected by the believers (Jn.3:19-21).[40] In
John’s Gospel the new commandment was “love one another” (Jn.13:34f, 15:12,
17). The theme of hating is not developed though some scholars think that it is
implied in the use of “one another” rather than “the neighbour,” noting that
the synoptic command to love the enemy is absent from this Gospel. However
these outlooks the theme of God’s love for the world and the aim that the world
might come to believe and know (Jn.3:16, 17:20).[41]
3.7. Eschatological Dualism:
In John, John emphasizes the last things that have
already begun to break into the present. This kind of expression is found in
some places: “but the hour is coming and is now here” (4:23; 5:25) and “the
hour has come” (12:23). These expressions display the realized character of
Johannine dualism. A new order has come (realized
eschatology): the Law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through
Jesus (1:17). Those who cling to the
law orient themselves around a past revelation (Jn.1:17), but those who come
and believe in him whom God has sent (Jn.8:42) receive the light of the present
revelation which has come but also still to come (Jn.15:26; 4:16ff).[42]
The contrast between the water from Jacob’s well from which one would thirst
again (4:12) and the water which Jesus gives (Jn.4:14) displays the present
quality of John’s eschatology. One of the undeniable aspects of Johannine
dualism, according to Charlesworth, is that while the soteriological task of
Jesus of Nazareth has been completed, God’s revelation has not ended. The
future holds the last judgment and final revelation. Even so the eschatology of
the Fourth Evangelist is realized. Charlesworth comments that Johannine dualism
is essentially soteriological in the sense that the dualism is conceived as
Christ opposed by the world, light opposed by darkness, truth opposed by
falsehood, love opposed by hate and life opposed by death.[43] The centrality of Jesus in
salvation history is further emphasized by the "hour" of which we
hear so much in John (Jn.2:4; 8:20; 12:23). It is the hour of Jesus' passion,
death, resurrection, and ascension as the culminating hour in the long history
of God's dealings with humanity. The same emphasis is found in the repeated use
of "now." The hour is coming and now is... (Jn.4:23; 5:25).
"Now" the mission of Jesus will come to its climax, which will mean
victory over the devil and the world (Jn.12:31), his own glorification in death
(Jn.17:5), and his return to the Father (Jn.16:5; 17:13). The climax of
redemptive history is also an anticipation of the eschatological consummation.[44]
Conclusion:
In John and in the teaching of Jesus he records
that the darkness is universal until the shining of the light. There is no
division of people into classes according to the dominance of the two spirits.
In John’s Gospel, the prince of this world is already a defeated foe, although
all unbelievers are still under his influence. The fundamental difference
between the dualism of the Qumran and the dualism of John is the centrality of
Christ in the John’s dualism, which is naturally absent
in Qumran dualism. It is not odd to believe that the Evangelist was
influenced by the dualistic ideas prior to him. In the mean time, a careful
comparison between the other dualism and Johannine dualism there are severe
difference between them. Johannine dualism never ends with endless contrast.
Rather, the meeting point, Jesus Christ is always set after his dualism. It
seems that he skillfully employed and modified his contemporary dualism in
order to be relevant to his audience. To conclude, although John’s various
dualistic thoughts may comprise of two wholly contrasting and different
concepts. However, when put together it conveys a significant meaning with deep
influence upon the readers.
Bibliography:
Achtemeier, E. R. “Darkness.” In Dictionary
of Biblical Imagery. Edited by L. Ryken, J.C. Wilhoit and T. Longman III. Illinois: Inter-Varsity, 1998.
189-198.
Anderson, P. N. “John
and Qumran: discovery and Interpretation over Sixty years.” In College
of Christian Studies (2008): 15-50.
Barrett, C. K. The Gospel
According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. 2nd Edition.
London: SPCK, 1993.
Bianchi, U. “Dualism.” In The
Encyclopedia of Religion (New York: Harper, 1987. 506-512.
Brown, R. E. The Gospel
According to John, vol.1. New
York: Doubleday, 1970.
Bultmann, R. The
Gospel According to St. John, vol.1. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1948.
_______. Theology of the New
Testament, vol. 2. Translated by K. Grobel. London: SCM, 1958.
Charlesworth, J. H. “A Critical
Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS III, 13-IV, 26 and the Dualism Contained in the Fourth Gospel.” In New Testament Studies 15/04 (1969): 397-412.
_______. “The Fourth Evangelist and the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Assessing Trends over Nearly Sixty
Years.” In John, Qumran, and The Dead Sea Scrolls: Sixty Years of Discovery and Debate. Edited by M. L.
Coloe and T. Thatcher. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. 98-118.
Crump, D.M. “Truth.” In Dictionary
of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited
by J. G. Green, S.McKnight,
I. H.Marshall. Illinois: Inter-Varsity, 1998. 852-859.
Culpepper, R.A. Anatomy of the
Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.
Davies, P.R. “Dualism
and Eschatology in the Qumran War Scroll.” In Vêtus Testamentum, vol.
XXVIII (2007): 28-36.
Dodd, C.H. Interpretation of
the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Goppelt, L. Theology of the
New Testament, vol. 2. Translated by John E. Alsup. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1982.
Guthrie, D. New Testament
Theology. Secundarabad: OM Books, 2003.
Hahne, H.A. “Gospel of
John: Dualism and Eschatology.” In Restoration Quarterly 7/4 (2012): 1-12.
Kanagaraj, J.K. The Gospel of
John: A Commentary. Secunderabad, OM Books, 2005.
Ladd, G.E. The Theology of the New Testament. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1993.
Okure, T. “The Johannine Approach to Mission.” In Pacifica 3/3 (1990): 345-349.
Painter, J. The Quest for the
Messiah: The History, Literature and Theology of the Johannine Community. Edinburg: T&T Clark,
1993.
Ridderbos, H. The Gospel of
John: A Theological Commentary. Translated by John Friend. Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997.
Shirbroun, G.F. “Light.” In Dictionary
of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited
by J. G. Green, S.McKnight, I. H.
Marshall. Illinois: Inter-Varsity, 1998. 469- 475.
Vellanickal, M. Studies in the
Gospel of John. Bangalore: Asian Trading Corporation, 1997.
Wheelwright, P.E. Metaphor and
Reality. London: Indiana University Press, 1962.
[2] James H. Charlesworth, “A
Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS III, 13-IV, 26 and the Dualism
Contained in the Fourth Gospel,” in NTS
15/04 (1969): 402. The aspect of Dualism is found in the scrolls of the
Rule of the Community in 1QS, 4QS, and 5QS, 1QS Col III: 18–19, IV: 21, 23.
[3] Leonhard Goppelt, Theology of
the New Testament, vol. 2 (trans. John E. Alsup; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1982), 291.
[8] John
Painter, The Quest for the Messiah: The
History, Literature and Theology of the Johannine Community (Edinburg:
T&T Clark, 1993), 36.
[9] Zoroastrianism is a Persian
religion founded in the sixth century B.C.E. by the prophet Zoroaster.
Zoroaster taught that the end of the world will come when the forces of light
triumph, and that the saved souls will rejoice in their victory.
[11] C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St.
John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd ed.
(London: SPCK, 1993), 34.
[12] Paul N. Anderson, “John and
Qumran: discovery and Interpretation over Sixty years,” in CCS (2008): 33.
[14] James H. Charlesworth, “The Fourth Evangelist and the Dead Sea
Scrolls: Assessing Trends over Nearly Sixty Years,” in John, Qumran, and The
Dead Sea Scrolls: Sixty Years of Discovery and Debate (eds. Mary L. Coloe
and Tom Thatcher; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 107.
[15] George Eldon Ladd, The Theology of the New Testament (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1993), 132.
[19] Matthew Vellanickal, Studies in the Gospel of John (Bangalore:
Asian Trading Corporation, 1997), 17.
[22] R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of
the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1987), 190-91.
[23] E. R. Achtemeier, “Darkness,”
in DBI (eds. Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit and Tremper Longman
III; Illinois: Inter-Varsity, 1998), 193.
[24] G.F. Shirbroun, “Light,” in DJG
(eds. Joel G.
Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall; Illinois: Inter-Varsity, 1998), 473.
[28] C.H. Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992), 304.
[29] Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel
of John: A Theological Commentary (trans. John Friend; Cambridge: Eerdmans,
1997), 130.
[32] Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of
the New Testament, vol. 2 (trans.
Kendrick Grobel; London: SCM, 1958), 18-20.
[34] D.M. Crump, “Truth” in DJG (eds. Joel G. Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall;
Illinois: Inter-Varsity, 1998), 859.
[44] Philip R. Davies, “Dualism And Eschatology In The
Qumran War Scroll,” in VêtTest, vol.
XXVIII (2007): 26. 28-36.
