The clauses of verses 22-23 stand side by side without any connective particle, which lends a certain solemnity to the style. This is in accordance with the importance of the subject John is treating here, namely, the denial of Christ’s humanity. This denial is the great lie of the false teachers.

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ: it may be preferable to reword this rhetorical question as a real question followed by an answer; compare “Who, then, is the liar? It is he who…” (Good News Translation), or it may be preferable to shift from question to statement; for example, ‘if anyone is a liar, it certainly is he who denies…,’ or ‘the one who denies…, he lies.’

The liar, that is, a real liar, one who tells lies in the fullest sense of the word. The definite article serves here to single out a characteristic representative of the class.

“To deny that Jesus is the Christ” may have to be rendered ‘to declare that Jesus is not the Christ.’ The verb refers to an utterance in public.

The term (the) Christ, occurring also in 5.1 and 2 John 9, originated as the translation of “the Messiah,” both words meaning “the anointed one.” The Gospel uses the term as a descriptive name or a title for the One whom God had promised to send as savior of his people Israel. In these Letters it functions as a proper name, and as such it should be not translated but transliterated. Both for John and for his opponents, this name referred to a divine person and was virtually synonymous with “the Son (of God)” (compare verses 22-23; 5.1, 5), or with “the Word,” as used in 1.1, and John 1.1-14.

In the Gospel the debate with the Jews was whether Jesus could be the Messiah, or Christ, of Israel. In this Letter another point is in discussion. John and his opponents differed on the question whether the man Jesus could be the same person as the divine Christ. For the false teachers this proposition was unacceptable, since it was radically in conflict with their gnostic philosophy (compare Introduction pages 3 and following). But for John it was the main and crucial point of the Christian faith. Everyone who denied it could not be but a liar in his eyes.

This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son: in this sentence this, taking up “the liar,” points forward to he who denies … the Son. A more common sentence structure would be “he who denies the Father and the Son is the antichrist.” The present structure has probably been chosen to bring the opposites “Christ” and antichrist close to one another, and thus to stress the contrast.

The proposition stated here is closely related to that in the preceding clause. In combination the two clauses serve to say that denying Christ’s true humanity is denying God as the Father of Jesus Christ. This is so because the Father of Jesus Christ is a God who does not wish to remain detached from this material world but is ready to be involved in it in order to save humanity.

He who denies that …: what is denied here is not a statement, as in the preceding clause, but persons. With a personal object, the verb has the meaning “not to acknowledge allegiance to” (as in Luke 12.9) or “not to acknowledge/accept a person for what he is” (in this and the next clause). Some of the renderings used here are “to reject” (Good News Translation), “to disown” (Goodspeed), ‘to say “no” about,’ or, more descriptively, ‘to declare one does not believe in.’ In one receptor language a literal rendering of the verb would suggest falsehood on the part of the person who denies; hence ‘he does not recognize the Father….’

The Father and the Son. Since denying the Son is the cause, and denying the Father the result, one would expect the Son to be mentioned first. The reverse sequence has probably been chosen in order to stress the dreadful consequences of this false christology. It is to bring out that man’s relationship with God himself is at stake. For the Father see comments on 1.2.

† For the Son see comments on “his Son” in 1.3, and on “the Son of God” in 3.8. Just as the Father, the word functions as a proper name. It may have to be marked as such, for example, by the use of a name qualifier. In some receptor languages it is preferable or obligatory to use a possessive form, ‘his Son,’ or ‘the/that Father’s Son.’ Other occurrences of the Son are 2.23-24; 5.12; 2 John 9.

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 .