The statement But the time is coming and is already here indicates to some degree the historical-theological tension that exists in John’s Gospel. It reflects the same viewpoint the Synoptic Gospels present regarding the Kingdom of God: although it is present, it is yet to come.
In a number of languages such an abstract expression as time does not exist. One must use a more specific reference to an occasion by saying, “But the day is coming.” However, in some languages one cannot speak of a “day coming,” since only animate objects may “come,” but one may say “The day is happening” or “It will soon be the day, and in fact it is already the day.”
Really is discussed under 1.9.
For a detailed discussion of “spirit,” “truth,” and the phrase “in spirit and in truth” and “the spirit of truth,” see Appendix II, “Translating ‘In Spirit and Truth’ and ‘the Spirit of Truth’ in the Gospel of John.”
It is obvious that not all the concepts treated in this appendix can be included in a translation of the phrase “in spirit and in truth,” but it is helpful to be conscious of the background of these terms before trying to translate them. Translation has its limitations, and there are points at which the full implications of certain theological terms must depend upon the teaching ministry of the church. However, it is the responsibility of the translator to render these terms in a way that will provide the clearest possible understanding of their meaning by the reader.
The Good News Translation rendering, by the power of God’s Spirit, may be expressed in some languages “by means of God’s Spirit,” since by the power of specifies primarily means or instrumentality. Since the Greek phrase “in Spirit” is best interpreted as a reference to the Holy Spirit, its relation to worship evidently refers to the way in which people are to worship God.
As he really is translates a phrase which in Greek is literally “in truth.” Since it seems to refer to the “true revelation about God,” it is possible to translate it “will worship the Father as he truly is” or “will worship the Father as the one who he truly is.”
Offering him the true worship that he wants may require restructuring, since it may not be possible to speak of “offering worship” or even of “true worship.” The closest equivalent may be “worshiping him in the true way, the way that he wants” or “worshiping him genuinely, just as he wants to be worshiped.” In some languages true worship is equivalent to “worship in the way in which one should.” In other words, it is equivalent to “right worship.”
The content of verse 24 is essentially the same as the last part of verse 23. The repetition, primarily for emphasis, serves to elaborate the implications of the statement God is Spirit.
Perhaps the most difficult expression in verses 23 and 24 is the clause God is Spirit. It is relatively easy to speak about “the spirit of God” or “his Spirit,” but to say that God is Spirit may cause difficulty, for to use “spirit” essentially as a designation of quality and character is unusual. Even the meaning of Spirit offers certain complications, for though people may be accustomed to speaking about the spirit of a person, they may be reluctant to think of the Spirit of God.
Many languages have several distinct words for “spirit.” One of them normally designates the spirit of a person, which leaves at death and may even temporarily depart in dreams or during unconsciousness (for example, as the result of an accident). The other term for “spirit” designates some kind of supernatural, demonic personality, which has never been a part of the person, but may for various purposes enter and take control of him. Such spirits are regarded normally as having their abode in the mountains, springs, streams, and forests. They are not creators and are not in control of natural phenomena (if they were, they would probably be called “gods”), but they do exert supernatural power, usually with mischievous or malevolent purpose.
One difficulty in using the first type of word for “spirit” in speaking of God is that the term may suggest that God himself had died, and that consequently his spirit is active somewhere else in the universe. The second word for spirit would degrade God to the level of the demons, or suggest that God himself was inhabited by a kind of demonic force. To avoid these wrong implications, translators sometimes borrow a foreign term (from Greek, Latin, Hebrew, etc.), but this practice rarely proves satisfactory, since an explanation of such a term must depend upon local equivalences.
The usual practice is to adopt the “least unsatisfactory” term and then use it consistently, with sufficient contextual conditioning to indicate clearly that the Spirit of God is referred to. Such a phrase as “of God” or such a qualifier as “Holy” is then added. However, in this particular context, God is Spirit, there is the additional complication of trying to qualify the nature of God without declaring that he is a particular spirit, like the demonic spirits. The closest equivalent in some languages may be “God is like a spirit” or “to know what God is like, one must know what a spirit is like.”
For further discussion of some of the problems related to the translation of the term “spirit,” see “Bible Translating”, page 210 and the following pages.
Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on the Gospel of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .