1 John 1:5 Valid Buildup Makes a Great Punchline (Kajuan)
Commentary 1 John 1:5
Focus #5 The Message
Keywords: Affirmative, Negative, Light, Darkness
If you’ve ever been in a political, theological, philosophical, or any kind of debate, then you were either on the “Affirmative” (or “Pro”) side of that discussion, or you stood firm on the “Negative,” or “opposed to” side. The “Affirmative” side of discourse is where one takes the position of defending a proposition (idea or theory); they provide statements that support the proposition. Contrarily, the “Negative” side is generally one who’s playing the defense. They listen to the statements given by the Affirmative, and they use reasoning as defense to say why whatever statement is raised, to validate the proposition, isn’t coherent. Let’s take a look at this.
There’s a proposition raised that Gorillas are native to Africa. The Affirmative position, of course, says “Yeah, that’s right! They’re native to Africa—we have proof!” Well, the Negative position is going to raise adamant questions, and are only going to be persuaded to the extent of how well the Affirmative answers those questions. Nonetheless, some of those questions may be: who told you this (or where did you get this information from)? What is that person’s or website’s credibility? And why are you telling us? What are the benefits of this knowledge?
Considering this debate, hypothetically, the Affirmative might start off their argument with one or two invalid points such as “Gorillas are native to Africa because Google says so, and my three year old nephew says so, and th-“ and, as you can imagine, the Negative would cut them off mid-sentence and say something like “wait, but that’s not valid,” and then the Affirmative responds firmly, “let me finish what I was saying.” Out of mere respect the Negative let’s the Affirmative finish, but It’s only natural for the Negative to disregard everything that follows the Affirmative’s first two points because he started off with no solidity. Therefore, anything after the two false, rather unjustified, points is no longer solid information.
That said, if we ever plan on getting a point across, then we must have a valid build up of truth and coherence; everything up to the punchline must be solid and true so when we state our punchline, then it’s very firm and hard to go against.
If the Affirmative in the above debate were to say something like (given the following statements are true) “Researchers conducted a search on the nativity of Gorillas around the world, and found that Gorillas are native to Africa, and this information is important to know so if you go to Africa you are aware that many Gorillas are around you, etc. and in conclusion, Gorillas are native to Africa.” Then the Negative would have a harder time providing an antithesis because the Affirmative provided very solid statements that are in favor of the proposition. One being a discovered fact through research, and, two, it's coming from a sincere heart, so there is nothing for the Affirmative to gain by sharing this information.
The Apostle John, I believe, knew this to be very true. From verses 1-4 John is building up with truth and coherence, so when he gives the people The Message, they can receive it without any form of doubt.
1 John 1:1 (see commentary by Pastor Rashard Jones), John says Jesus is God. He’s declaring the credibility of the person who told him The Message. In other words, you should take heed to The Message; it’s coming from God himself.
1 John 1:2 (see commentary by myself), John lets us know how it was even possible for God to tell him The Message—which is through another man's vocal cords, Jesus.
1 John 1:3 (see commentary by Jermaine Studwell), John claims he heard/saw Jesus first-hand tell him The Message. He really heard it; the information did not come from someone else. Also, John is willing to be persecuted for standing up for the truth— “credibility through persecution.”
1 John 1:4 (see commentary by Pastor Rashard Jones), the benefit of The Message is so the reader’s joy may be full. So, John wants them to know he isn’t benefiting from telling them this information; they are.
So, similar to any good argument, before John states what The Message (his argument) is, he’s letting the readers know the credibility, sincerity, and benefits of The Message (his argument) first.
“This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.”
1 John 1:5 KJV
In the first four verses John makes it very clear that The Message is true. There’s credible sources, and the reason for sharing The Message is merely to bring the readers joy. So, he tackles any questions that could have possibly been raised if he would have started the book of first John with (1 John 1:1) “This then is the message which we have heard of him, God is Light, and in Him is no darkness at all.”
If that were the case, the Negative position to that proposition (first verse) may have asked questions such as: heard from who? (or where did you get this information from)? What is that person’s credibility? And why are you telling us? What are the benefits of this knowledge?
The Apostle John puts the validity to his proposition out front, first, so common questions as such are put down before ever asked. His valid buildup in the four previous versus made a great punchline—The Message. Therefore, it becomes very challenging, if not foolish, for the Negative to claim anything “opposed to” The Message.
Now, if we consider The Message to be sacred and true, what does it mean? I believe it becomes as simple as defining “Light,” and “Darkness.”
Let’s review Scripture:
Darkness
“And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”
John 1:5 KJV
“It is a land as dark as midnight, a land of gloom and confusion, where even the light is dark as midnight.’””
Job 10:22 NLT
“But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.”
1 John 2:11 KJV
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
Isaiah 5:20 KJV
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
Ephesians 6:12 KJV
Light
“While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.”
John 12:36 KJV
“For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.”
John 3:20 KJV
“For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:”
Ephesians 5:8 KJV
“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”
Matthew 5:16 KJV
For darkness we see words like: confusion, evil, gloom (depression), blindness, and hate—some say wickedness.
For light we see the context expressing words like: righteous, goodness, holiness, etc.. Or, God himself is Light.
If we substitute these words in for The Message, then we have synonymous messages of what God wanted them/us to know here.
(e.g. God is righteous, and in him is no confusion at all.
1 John 1:5 Valid Buildup Makes a Great Punchline (Kajuan)
Commentary 1 John 1:5
Focus #5 The Message
Keywords: Affirmative, Negative, Light, Darkness
If you’ve ever been in a political, theological, philosophical, or any kind of debate, then you were either on the “Affirmative” (or “Pro”) side of that discussion, or you stood firm on the “Negative,” or “opposed to” side. The “Affirmative” side of discourse is where one takes the position of defending a proposition (idea or theory); they provide statements that support the proposition. Contrarily, the “Negative” side is generally one who’s playing the defense. They listen to the statements given by the Affirmative, and they use reasoning as defense to say why whatever statement is raised, to validate the proposition, isn’t coherent. Let’s take a look at this.
There’s a proposition raised that Gorillas are native to Africa. The Affirmative position, of course, says “Yeah, that’s right! They’re native to Africa—we have proof!” Well, the Negative position is going to raise adamant questions, and are only going to be persuaded to the extent of how well the Affirmative answers those questions. Nonetheless, some of those questions may be: who told you this (or where did you get this information from)? What is that person’s or website’s credibility? And why are you telling us? What are the benefits of this knowledge?
Considering this debate, hypothetically, the Affirmative might start off their argument with one or two invalid points such as “Gorillas are native to Africa because Google says so, and my three year old nephew says so, and th-“ and, as you can imagine, the Negative would cut them off mid-sentence and say something like “wait, but that’s not valid,” and then the Affirmative responds firmly, “let me finish what I was saying.” Out of mere respect the Negative let’s the Affirmative finish, but It’s only natural for the Negative to disregard everything that follows the Affirmative’s first two points because he started off with no solidity. Therefore, anything after the two false, rather unjustified, points is no longer solid information.
That said, if we ever plan on getting a point across, then we must have a valid build up of truth and coherence; everything up to the punchline must be solid and true so when we state our punchline, then it’s very firm and hard to go against.
If the Affirmative in the above debate were to say something like (given the following statements are true) “Researchers conducted a search on the nativity of Gorillas around the world, and found that Gorillas are native to Africa, and this information is important to know so if you go to Africa you are aware that many Gorillas are around you, etc. and in conclusion, Gorillas are native to Africa.” Then the Negative would have a harder time providing an antithesis because the Affirmative provided very solid statements that are in favor of the proposition. One being a discovered fact through research, and, two, it's coming from a sincere heart, so there is nothing for the Affirmative to gain by sharing this information.
The Apostle John, I believe, knew this to be very true. From verses 1-4 John is building up with truth and coherence, so when he gives the people The Message, they can receive it without any form of doubt.
So, similar to any good argument, before John states what The Message (his argument) is, he’s letting the readers know the credibility, sincerity, and benefits of The Message (his argument) first.
“This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.”
1 John 1:5 KJV
In the first four verses John makes it very clear that The Message is true. There’s credible sources, and the reason for sharing The Message is merely to bring the readers joy. So, he tackles any questions that could have possibly been raised if he would have started the book of first John with (1 John 1:1) “This then is the message which we have heard of him, God is Light, and in Him is no darkness at all.”
If that were the case, the Negative position to that proposition (first verse) may have asked questions such as: heard from who? (or where did you get this information from)? What is that person’s credibility? And why are you telling us? What are the benefits of this knowledge?
The Apostle John puts the validity to his proposition out front, first, so common questions as such are put down before ever asked. His valid buildup in the four previous versus made a great punchline—The Message. Therefore, it becomes very challenging, if not foolish, for the Negative to claim anything “opposed to” The Message.
Now, if we consider The Message to be sacred and true, what does it mean? I believe it becomes as simple as defining “Light,” and “Darkness.”
Let’s review Scripture:
Darkness
“And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”
John 1:5 KJV
“It is a land as dark as midnight, a land of gloom and confusion, where even the light is dark as midnight.’””
Job 10:22 NLT
“But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.”
1 John 2:11 KJV
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
Isaiah 5:20 KJV
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
Ephesians 6:12 KJV
Light
“While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them.”
John 12:36 KJV
“For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.”
John 3:20 KJV
“For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:”
Ephesians 5:8 KJV
“Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”
Matthew 5:16 KJV
For darkness we see words like: confusion, evil, gloom (depression), blindness, and hate—some say wickedness.
For light we see the context expressing words like: righteous, goodness, holiness, etc.. Or, God himself is Light.
If we substitute these words in for The Message, then we have synonymous messages of what God wanted them/us to know here.
(e.g. God is righteous, and in him is no confusion at all.
1 John 1:5)
(e.g. God is holy, and in him is no hate at all.
1 John 1:5)
etc. etc.
Amen.