John who asserts that “God is love” (1Jn 4:8& 16) also asserts that “God is light” (1Jn 1:5). So why is it that some absolutize the fact that God is love and not that God is light? More importantly are they wrong? In all three places they are the exact same construction. Why is the attribute of love elevated above all else when light is not?

In reflecting on this it occurs to me both are true and both are primary (as far as any attribute of God can be ‘primary’). The difference between the two is not in structure or truth, but in meaning. We can take the term “love” as literal because that is pretty clear that it is. However, what about light? What did John mean by ‘light’? If you look at how John uses “love” (agape) you see that it is pretty consistent and pretty literal. Love is love. But when you look at how he uses “light” (phos) you see he often uses it as a metaphor for truth.

So we can absolutize both “God is love” and “God is light” and at the same time not compartmentalize God’s attributes. Sproul speaks of the concept of God being love as God being “the source, the ground, the norm, and fountainhead of all love” (Sproul, Loved By God, 5). The same is true of “God is light”. God is the source of all truth. He is creator of everything and “it is impossible for God to lie” (Heb 6:18). God is truth.

Imagine if we did with “God is Light” what others do with “God is Love”. The ultimate good for mankind then is to luminesce. We should all glow.