The first clause of this verse, in the Greek without conjunction, may require an adversative connective such as “But.”

He who commits sin is of the devil is the direct opposite of verse 7b: whereas the man who does right lives according to the ways of God, sinners live according to the ways of the devil, God’s adversary.

For is of the devil in the sense of ‘originates from, and has the quality of, the devil,’ compare “is of the Father” in 2.16. Other renderings found here are ‘is ruled by the devil,’ ‘his heart is possessed by the devil,’ ‘is Satan’s man,’ “is a child of the devil” (New English Bible, and others).

† The devil (here and verse 10) renders Greek ho diabolos, basically “the slanderer,” or “the defamer.” The word functions as the proper name of the supreme ruler of the forces of evil. Translators have dealt with this term in various ways. Many of them (1) use a transliteration; or (2) borrow a form from the dominant language in the area, for example Arabic iblis in Muslim countries (itself derived from the Greek word); or (3) adopt an indigenous name or designation for a closely corresponding evil being (which may literally mean ‘the malicious deity,’ ‘the avaricious one’); or (4) coin a descriptive phrase such as ‘ruler of demons,’ ‘supreme/great evil spirit.’ In a few cases they translate the basic meaning of the Greek word, or they transliterate its Hebrew-Aramaic equivalent “Satan.”

Has sinned from the beginning: the Greek verb is in the present tense, indicating habitual action, ‘the devil was sinning when the world began (compare comments on from the beginning in 1.1a) and has continued to do so ever since.’ His power is as old as the history of mankind. This very fact necessitated the appearance of Christ, who came to break the devil’s power, as John goes on to point out next.

The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil or, more literally, “for this the Son of God appeared, in order that he should destroy….” “For this” points forward to and is complemented by “in order that.”

Some versions, simplifying this construction, translate the sentence by ‘the Son … appeared to (or in order that he should) destroy….’ It seems probable, however, that John chose the heavier construction to call attention to the final clause, and to emphasize the contrast between the devil’s activity and the Son of God’s purpose. To bring this out one may have to use other means; for example, transposing the final clause to the beginning of the sentence, ‘(and) it is (exactly) to destroy … that the Son of God appeared’ (Bible de Jérusalem).

† The Son of God (occurring also in 4.15; 5.5, 10, 13, 20) is preferably to be rendered literally, since in the Bible Jesus Christ is spoken of as the Son of God in exactly the same terms as used for parent-child relationships. However, a literal rendering is not always possible. Thus in one language ‘Son of God’ is the name the members of the tribe apply to themselves, and in another it means ‘lucky person.’ Hence specifications like ‘the only Son of God,’ ‘truly the Son of God’ may be needed.

To destroy is sometimes rendered ‘to undo,’ ‘to do away with,’ ‘to cause to be lost for sure,’ ‘to put/make an end to,’ ‘to wipe out.’

The works of the devil, or ‘all that the devil is doing’: this refers both to the Devil’s own sinful deeds, and to his instigating others to sin.

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 .