The central part of verse 18 is included between two references to the last hour. This figure of inclusion occurs also elsewhere; for example, in 3.5-8 and 23.

For children see comments on verse 13c.

It is the last hour: the phrase the last hour (in the Greek without the article) occurs only here in the New Testament. Yet it must have been a well-known expression or technical term which the Greek could use without the article. The noun may refer to a period of time or to a moment in time. The latter is the meaning here. The phrase designates the final and decisive moment in the history of mankind. Comparable expressions are found in the Gospel of John; for example, “the hour” (5.25, 28, in the Greek also without article), and “the last day” (6.39-40, 44, 54).

In some Gospel passages (such as 3.18; 4.23; 5.25) John views the final decision as being a fact already, in others as becoming a fact in the immediate future. It is the latter view that prevails here; hence, for example, “we are getting near the end of things” (Phillips).

An equivalent technical term may exist in the receptor language; for example, one Philippine language, which uses ‘consummation’ (derived from a verb meaning ‘to complete/fulfill’). But in most cases the rendering must be expanded so as to convey the implications which the term the last hour had for the original receptors; compare such expressions as ‘time of the ending of days,’ ‘the moment just before the end (or before the new time/age).’ Further shifts may be necessary, as in the following rendering of the clause, ‘this present period of life is coming to an end (literally, has been a long time).’

The connectives as…, so … usually indicate comparison, but here they serve to bring out that the contents of the so-clause agree with what is said in the as-clause. This is brought out in a rendering like “you have heard that Antichrist is coming, and many Antichrists have indeed appeared” (Goodspeed [Goodspeed]).

As you have heard: see comments on 2.7. The appearance of the antichrist shortly before the end of time must have formed a regular topic in Christian teaching.

Antichrist is coming: preferably “will come,” “is to come” (compare Good News Translation, New English Bible), since the present tense of the verb has future force here. The implication is, of course, that the antichrist will come in or about the time referred to as the last hour. It is preferable to indicate that implication, for example, as ‘… the end of time in which the antichrist will come, as you have heard.’

† The term antichrist occurs in the New Testament only here and in 2.22; 4.3; 2 John 7, but the concept is found also in other New Testament passages; see especially 2 Thes 2.1-12, on “the final Rebellion … and the Wicked One…, who is destined to hell” (Good News Translation). The Greek prefix anti- can mean “against” as well as “instead of.” Accordingly antichrist may be taken as describing one who, assuming the appearance of Christ, opposes Christ.

Many versions, among them Good News Translation, render the term as ‘enemy (or opponent, or hater) of Christ,’ ‘one who is against (or acts contrary to, or rejects) Christ.’ Some have chosen the other interpretation; for example, ‘imposter of Christ,’ or have combined the two, as in ‘deceiver-Christ (or not-Christ) who is an enemy of Christ.’ The first interpretation seems, on the whole, the more satisfactory one.

Transliteration of the Greek term is traditionally the most common procedure in western languages. Although it is not advisable in most other receptor languages, it has often been adopted there because it had become current usage with the function of a proper name. This may seem a safe procedure, but sometimes is far from being so. In one language, for example, the pronunciations of anti- and auntie (a borrowing from English) are alike, and therefore the form had to be handled carefully, lest it be taken to mean “auntie Christ.” In another language the word ‘antichrist’ is well known, but only as the designation of the illegal child of a priest.

Many antichrists have come: in the preceding clause antichrist (in the singular) referred to a figure that will come at the end of time, and as such, a person not to be a part of ordinary life. In the present clause the same term is used in the plural with reference to the false teachers, persons whom John and his readers were encountering every day. By thus characterizing his opponents as embodiments of the antichrist, John equates the vision of the future and the present-day situation.

It is preferable to render antichrist by the same receptor language expression in both occurrences. Any variation that may be necessary because of the difference in number or class should be kept to the minimum.

Have come (in the Greek a perfect tense form of “to come-to-be,” “to become”) can also be rendered ‘have appeared/arisen,’ ‘have come to the fore,’ or ‘are present,’ ‘are at work.’

Therefore we know that it is the last hour draws the conclusion from the preceding sentence. The argument runs thus: the antichrist will come in the last hour—antichrists exist now—consequently the last hour is now. Hence such renderings as ‘which proves to us that it is the last hour.’

We know, or ‘we can be sure,’ or ‘we can conclude.’ The pronoun (here and in verses 19, 25, 28) is “the preacher’s ‘we’ ” again; compare 1.6.

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 .

This verse should be taken as describing the situation which results from what has been said in verses 19-20; John considers this situation to be the normal Christian state of heart. To bring out this relationship one may say “and so, my dear friends, if our heart…” (Good News Translation), ‘dear friends, if it is a fact that our hearts….’

For Beloved, see comments on 2.7.

In We have confidence before God, the verb is in the present tense, showing that the reference is to a present reality; the Christian can have confidence now and act accordingly, because his heart is no longer condemning him. For “to have confidence” see comments on 2.28.

Before God, preferably “towards God,” “with regard to God,” “in God.” The Greek preposition is not the same as the one occurring in verse 19. It serves to express direction, then a (here, friendly) relationship. Compare renderings of the clause like ‘we can turn towards God with confidence,’ ‘we have courage to approach God,’ ‘we do not fear to talk to God,’ ‘we rest the whole weight of our heart on God.’

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 .

In Greek New Testament and others the first words of this verse are taken as forming verse 7. Between there are three witnesses and the Spirit, the water, and the blood, the Textus Receptus inserts “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three witnesses on earth.” The first part of this insertion does not fit the context, for the congregation does not need a group of witnesses in heaven. And when this part is omitted, the second part becomes unnecessary: there is no need then to state expressly that the other group of witnesses is on earth.

This objection agrees with the textual fact that the words in question are not found in a single one of the old Greek manuscripts. They occur only in some Latin versions and have been adopted in the Vulgate (although they were not in the oldest manuscripts of that version). Consequently the insertion is not included in any modern edition of the Greek text nor in most modern versions.

It is much to be preferred that a translator follow this example. Sensitivities among the people who will use his translation, however, may compel him to include the inserted words. In such a case he should place them either in square brackets in the text (as done, for example, in Nieuwe Vertaling) or in a footnote (Bible de Jérusalem), preferably the latter.

In the Greek the verse begins with a connective that is often rendered by ‘for.’ Here, however, it serves to introduce a further statement of what precedes rather than the reason for it. Therefore it may be rendered ‘(yes,) actually.’ Some versions omit it altogether (among them Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation), which is quite acceptable in a case like this.

There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood: the Greek sentence is grammatically inconsistent in that witnesses (literally “witnessing-ones”) is of the masculine gender, although the three nouns in apposition to it are neuter. In the case of Spirit this inconsistency is found also in John 14.26 and 15.26, where it is used to indicate that the Spirit is viewed as a person. In a similar way the two other nouns, the water and the blood, are given here personal qualities. They are said to be “witnessing,” which is basically an activity of persons.

In several receptor languages it may be possible to say that a spirit is witnessing, but not that water or blood are doing so. When that is the case one may have to use a less decidedly personal rendering of “witness,” as found in ‘three the-ones showing-true: the Spirit, …’ ‘there are three that prove it (or cause it to be known). They are: the Spirit, …’

The verb “to be” is in the present tense. This tense contrasts with the aorist which the Greek uses in “he who came by water and blood” (verse 6). Consequently the reference is no longer to events that happened at a specific moment in the past but to something that takes place in the present and will continue in the future.

This suggests that in the present passage the phrase the water and the blood refers to the sacramental elements, the water of baptism and the wine of the Lord’s Supper, which form the counterpart to Christ’s baptism and his sacrificial death. These sacraments are and will be present in the congregation as continuous witnesses to the truth of Christ’s incarnation and redemptive death. As such their function is similar to that of the Holy Spirit, who brings to remembrance all that Jesus has said, and bears witness to him (compare the above quoted passages of John’s Gospel).

If the two passages are interpreted thus, the rendering of the water and the blood here may have to differ from the one used in verse 6 for “water and blood.” Several versions, for instance, render these words without any addition in the present verse, whereas they added a more or less explicit reference to Jesus’ baptism and death in verse 6.

And these three agree, or “and the three are one” (Goodspeed), “and they all say the same thing” (Phillips), ‘these, even though three, are of one accord (literally their innermosts are in each other).’ This is an allusion to a rule of Jewish law: “a charge must be established on the evidence of two or of three witnesses” (Deut 19.15, New English Bible). Accordingly the clause intends to show that the evidence for the assertions just given is beyond any legal doubt. From this it follows that the metaphorical use of “witness” found in these verses is based on the legal sense of that term. The same holds true of “testimony” in verses 9-11.

Speaking of the testimony that God has caused the three witnesses to give (verses 6-8), the author is reminded of the testimony God himself has given about the fact that Jesus is his Son. Verses 9-12 discuss this divine testimony which is the foundation of the testimony of the earthly witnesses.

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 .

After the proposition of the false teachers has been mentioned and refuted (verse 6), the present verse describes what the true Christian should do and will experience.

If (here and in verse 9) is conditional.

We walk in the light expresses the opposite of “we walk in darkness” in verse 6b. The clause structures parallel each other. This parallelism should be preserved as much as possible when the clauses have to be restructured.

Light means here the radiance of light (compare comments on 1 John 1.5), for the reference seems to be to the domain of light, to a place or situation that is clear or bright. Accordingly the rendering to be used is in some languages different from that in verse 5; for example, ‘we walk where it is bright.’

As he is in the light indicates how, that is, to what degree, “we” should walk in the light. They should do so as completely and fully as God is, or exists, in the light, compare such a rendering as ‘whenever we live in the same light/brightness in which God eternally is/exists.’

Logically speaking there is a discrepancy between this clause and “God is light” in verse 5, for God cannot be the light and at the same time exist in the light. But one should bear in mind that John does not intend to give logical definitions but is hinting at aspects of a reality that by definition is undefinable. Accordingly the translator should not try to harmonize the two statements but leave the discrepancy as it stands. He may even be compelled to widen the discrepancy, namely, in those languages where the rendering of light here must differ from that used in verse 5; see above.

We have fellowship with one another. At first sight one might expect here “we have fellowship with God.” But that was not what was required by the situation confronting John. The false teachers whose opinions he is quoting and refuting in these verses boasted of their fellowship and communion with God, but they neglected the fellowship with men (compare the Introduction, page 4). John wants to remind them that they cannot have fellowship with God unless they have fellowship with other Christians.

The verb form we have is in the present tense. This is to indicate that the reference is to a reality existing at the moment of speaking.

The blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. This last clause of verse 7 serves to remind the reader that the Christian’s true relationship with God and man is made possible by Jesus’ death. At the same time the reference to sin forms the transition to the next verses (1.8–2.2), where John refutes his opponents’ claim of being without sin.

The statement made in this clause was probably a standing phrase in the Christian congregation. Its wording must be seen against the background of the sacrificial rites of Israel, as mentioned, for example, in Numbers 19. In those rites an animal was killed as sacrifice, and its blood was sprinkled on objects or men that had become ritually polluted. Thus they were made clean, that is, their ritual stains were removed.

John uses these sacrificial terms symbolically here, applying them (as the Letter to the Hebrews does more fully) to Jesus’ sacrificial, redemptive death and its results with regard to men’s moral stains, that is, their sins. The context is such that this symbolical meaning can be easily understood. Therefore one can, in most receptor languages, use a literal rendering, if necessary adding a footnote giving further explanation and a reference to the Old Testament background. See also TBT, 22.104f, 197l.

However, in some languages a literal rendering is undesirable or impossible. Then one must indicate somehow that blood stands for the shedding of blood, and ultimately for death; hence such renderings as ‘the shed blood of Jesus…,’ ‘the fact that Jesus … has shed his own blood,’ ‘because Jesus … died, shedding his own blood,’ or simply ‘the death of Jesus…,’ ‘because Jesus … died.’ By the same token “cleanses” may have to become ‘takes away,’ ‘removes,’ ‘causes to cease.’

The name Jesus has to be transliterated, of course. To take Isa (the Arabic form of “Jesus”) as the basis of transliteration is, as a rule, not advisable, especially because the connotation Isa has in Islam is the negation of what “Jesus” means in Christianity.

The appositional phrase his son is added to remind the reader that it is God who is acting in Jesus’ life and death; compare verse 9, where it is God himself who “will make us clean from all our wrongdoing” (Good News Translation). The pronominal reference may have to be specified; hence, ‘God’s Son.’

Cleanses us from all sin: the present tense expresses duration and serves to indicate that the cleansing is going on. The construction with “from” often has to be adjusted; for example, ‘cleanses us, lets (us) be free from all sin,’ ‘makes us clean, and causes to cease all sin,’ ‘takes away all stains from us, that is to say, all our sins,’ or simply ‘removes all our sins.’

All sin may primarily refer either to all sinful deeds, or to the quality of being sinful, here probably the former. If one has to shift from a nominal to a verbal construction, one may say something like ‘cleanses everyone of us, whenever he has sinned.’

† It may be necessary to make explicit the religious connotation of cleanses, or ‘causes to be clean’, for example, by saying ‘to make clean before God.’ The concept “clean/pure” is sometimes better expressed negatively; for example, by phrases like ‘without dirt,’ ‘not stained,’ ‘not mixed.’ The term to be used should not refer to the removal or neutralizing of magic power acquired by a person as the result of his taking part in religious ceremonies.

† Sin implies both the violation of a standard ultimately set by God, and the personal responsibility of the sinner. In several languages rather generic terms are used to render the word; for example, ‘bad deed,’ ‘mistake,’ and the like. Such renderings are often quite acceptable, provided that the context sufficiently indicates the specific connotation required. But in other cases it is preferable to indicate at least some of the specific components of meaning, using terms or phrases such as ‘evil in the head-heart,’ ‘what comes from a bad heart,’ ‘what makes one guilty,’ all three showing the personal involvement; or ‘leaving the road,’ ‘missing the mark,’ both adding the concept of not conforming to a standard. It is interesting to note that the last-mentioned expression is also at the base of the Greek verb for “to sin.” For further details see A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Mark on 1.4.

Verses 8 and 9 contain the second quotation and refutation of the false teachers; compare the introductory remarks on 1.5–2.2.

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 .

This verse, showing how one can abide in Christ, concludes the preceding section. At the same time it states briefly the thought that is developed more fully in the next section (in 3.7 and 9). As such the verse has transitional function.

Here if introduces a clause that does not express a hypothetical possibility but refers to an obvious fact. Accordingly one may better use a connective that means “since,” “as it is a fact that.” With a shift to coordination this may lead to a rendering of the sentence like ‘You know that Christ is righteous; you may be sure, then, that….’

He is righteous: just as in the preceding verse, the pronoun here refers to Christ (also called “righteous” in 2.1; 3.7). At the end of the verse, however, “him” must refer to God (see below). The verb is in the present tense to show that the reference is to a continuous reality. For righteous see comments on “just” in 1.9.

For you may be sure, see comments on 1 John 2.3. The Greek form can have indicative or imperative force. The former is more probable, because the verb usually occurs in the indicative mood in this Letter, and because this agrees better with the reference to fact made in the preceding clause.

That every one who does right is born of him: to emphasize the correspondence between this that clause and the preceding one, the Greek uses kai in the sense of “also,” “similarly.” This is better represented in translation, not omitted as done in Revised Standard Version and some other versions.

† “To do right,” or ‘to do what is right,’ is an expression that often occurs in the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint. Here (and in 3.7, 10) it is used in the sense of to imitate Christ, who did what is right and is doing so now. For “to do” in similar occurrences, see comments on 1.6. Right is what is in accordance with God’s will; renderings are often built on the concept of straightness, or propriety, or goodness, compare “just” in 1.9.

Is born of him: the pronoun refers to God, as is clear from the next verse. The expression is a rather unexpected one here, since the line of thought seemed to lead up to something like “abides in him (or in Christ).” The writer probably preferred to use is born of him as a prelude to the following section. He could do so because “to abide in” and “to be born of” are synonymous, in that both phrases express a close and intimate relationship. And it was natural for him to do so because in his theology God and Christ, the Father and the Son, are essentially one.

† “To be born of” is in the Greek literally “to have been begotten out of.” Used metaphorically the verb serves to indicate a relationship that is comparable to that between a father and his child; for example, the relationship between a teacher and his pupils, or an evangelist and his converts (as in 1 Cor 4.15; Philemon 10). More specifically it is applied to the relationship between God and those who believe in him. Other occurrences of the expression, used also in connection with God, are 3.9 (which see for further details); 4.7; 5.4, 18; compare also “is a child of God,” in the Greek literally “has been born out of God,” in 5.1.

The verb is born is in the perfect tense. This is to indicate that the resulting relationship is in focus. Therefore it is often best to say ‘is his child,’ ‘is a child of God.’ Such a rendering is especially useful where a more literal translation of the verb would have undesirable connotations. This is the case, for example, in one Philippine language, where ‘is born of’ commonly refers to the illegitimate child of a married man; or in one American Indian language, where “to be born of God” would have to be rendered by an expression that literally means ‘to be dropped by God.’

If the imagery of birth or being God’s child would be unacceptable or incomprehensible, one may shift to a simile, or describe the relationship in another way; for example, ‘in God is the beginning of his life.’

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 .

The first sentence is the negative counterpart of verse 7b, with the exception that there is no reference here to being born of God, and that in the Greek “know” is not in the present tense, as in verse 7, but in the aorist tense. The same sequence of tenses occurs with the same meaning in 3.1; see discussion there for further help.

God is love. The same construction is found in 1.5 (“God is light”) and in 4.24 (“God is spirit”). The noun love, referring to a process, is the predicate of the sentence; it says something about God’s quality, character, and activity. The translator must take care not to give a rendering that equates God and love. This would imply that the clause order is reversible, and that God is love and “love is God” are both true propositions—which is certainly not what John meant to say.

After “love is of God” in verse 7a, the present clause functions as a climax: God is not only the origin of love, but love itself. At first sight this construction might suggest that John intends to identify God with an abstract principle. That this is not the case becomes clear, however, when one looks at the context, where God is represented as the personal agent of the act of loving.

The proposition “God loves us” might stand alongside such statements as “God creates,” “God rules,” “God judges.” Accordingly “God is love” does not mean to say that love is one of God’s activities, but that all his activity is loving activity. Whether he creates, or rules, or judges, he does so in love. All that he does is the expression of his nature, which is—to love.

The Greek construction cannot be followed in several languages because a corresponding verbal noun simply does not exist in the language or, if existing, cannot be used in this way, or, if it can be used this way, would not express the same meaning. Therefore translators have tried to express the force of this construction otherwise; for example, ‘God’s character is to habitually-love,’ ‘all God’s deeds are loving deeds,’ ‘God is one who continually and really loves,’ ‘God has-as-quality love.’

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 .

The first sentence takes up verse 18a, the second verse 18c. The verse contrasts the situation of the children of God and the situation of the world; compare also 2.15-17; 4.14-16.

We are of God: in the Greek of God is emphatic by position. For “to be of God” see comments on 2.16.

The whole world, or ‘all men (who live) in the world’: the noun is used here in its unfavorable sense; compare comments on 2.15, meaning (5).

Those who are of God are not included in the phrase the whole world. Some versions prefer to state this more explicitly; for example, ‘all others in this world.’

Is in the power of the evil one renders a Greek idiom, “lies in the evil one.” The verb phrase has also been rendered ‘is inside the hand of’ (in the language concerned a common idiom for being a chief’s servant), ‘is under the feet of,’ ‘is ruled/commanded by,’ ‘belongs to.’

The reference to the evil one is in the Greek emphatic by position. It contrasts with the reference to God in verse 19a.

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 .

Yet I am writing you a new commandment: the connective yet, or ‘on the other hand,’ serves to indicate that John, though going on to speak about the commandment, is now focussing on another aspect of it. Changes in the clause structure should parallel those in “I am writing you no new commandment” in verse 7.

In this context new is used in the sense of “unheard of,” “marvelous,” with favorable connotation. The old commandment to love one’s brother is marvelous in that it is now preached in the name of Jesus. He himself fulfilled it to perfection when “he gave his life for us” (3.16, Good News Bible), and therefore he had the right to say “A new commandment I give you: love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another” (John 13.34, Good News Bible).

The opposite terms new and old can, as a rule, be preserved in translation. Actually, their being used of one entity at the same time implies a shift of point of view. In some languages this must be indicated here; hence, ‘nevertheless, what I am writing to you may be considered (or is said to be) a new commandment.’

Which: the Greek uses the neuter singular form of the pronoun, not the feminine singular form agreeing with the feminine gender of the Greek word for “commandment.” This serves to show that the subsequent clause explains the whole idea of what precedes rather than the single word “commandment,” in English seemingly the immediate antecedent of the relative. To bring this out one may say, for example, ‘something that is true in…,’ or, as a nonsubordinate parenthetical sentence, ‘(and) that it is new is true in….’

Which is true in him and in you, that is, in Christ’s life/deeds and in yours. The preposition in again has the force of “manifest in,” “shown by”; see comments on “in him … perfected” in 1 John 2.5. This may result in renderings like ‘which is true, as manifest in him and in you,’ ‘he and you show it to be true,’ ‘his life/deeds and your life/deeds show the truth of it.’

In some cases the implied time element must be made explicit; hence, for example, ‘he showed it to be true, and you show it to be true (or, and you do the same now).’ Compare also the two following renderings: ‘which was true as thus he used to live, which is true as thus you live, also,’ ‘it is true because Christ completed it and because you all also are completing it.’

True may mean ‘genuine’ or ‘real.’ Compare also “truth” in 1.6.

Because introduces a sentence which may be taken to refer (1) to the clause “which is true in…” in verse 8b, (2) to the newness of the commandment in verse 8a, or (3) to the whole preceding part of the verse.

Following interpretation (1), the clause explains in what situation the new commandment can be shown to be true. It does so by referring to the fact that the true light is already overcoming the darkness; hence, for example, “… It has come true both in him and in you, for … the true light is already shining” (Translators’ Translation).

In case (2), the clause explains why the commandment can be called new; for example, ‘… a new commandment. It is true in him and in you. And it is new, in the sense that … the true light is already shining,’ or, transposing clauses 8b and 8c, ‘… a new commandment. New, because … the true light shines already. The truth of this is seen in him and in you’; compare also New English Bible.

Interpretation (3) combines the two possibilities. It is followed, for example, in Good News Translation‘s “However, the command … is new, and its truth is seen in Christ and also in you. For … the real light is already shining.”

All three interpretations are possible, but (1) seems slightly more probable. On the other hand, a rendering along the lines of Good News Translation allows the translator to make no decision about the exact interpretation. This is, as a rule, objectionable but may have its advantages in a case like this.

The other theoretically possible meaning of the Greek conjunction used here is “that” (compare Revised Standard Version, footnote). It would lead to the interpretation that the clause under discussion gives the contents of the new commandment. But since nothing in the clause is suggestive of a commandment, this interpretation is improbable.

The darkness is passing away, or “is beginning to lift” (Phillips), ‘is losing force,’ ‘is coming to an end.’ the aspect is durative, expressing that the darkness is in the process of disappearing but has not yet done so entirely. If the syntactic structure must be changed, one can say something like ‘it is ceasing to be dark,’ ‘it is becoming less and less dark.’ Darkness (for which see 1.5) can also be taken as referring to a dark period; hence a rendering like ‘the hour of darkness comes to an end,’ ‘the time in which it is dark is passing away.’

The true light is already shining: the clause is the counterpart of the preceding one, referring to the same situation but now under the aspect of the light that is gaining force (durative aspect again). The implication is that the shining of the light causes the disappearance of the darkness. This causal connection may have to be made explicit.

In passages like John 1.9 the phrase the true light refers to Jesus Christ, the Word, but here it is used to characterize the situation brought about by Jesus Christ, the Savior. This situation is like a shining light. Comparable passages are John 8.12b; Eph 5.8-14; 1 Thes 5.4-8.

This light is said to be true, or “genuine,” that is, actually having its apparent quality and being what it should be. This qualification suggests that the light to be mentioned in verse 9 is not genuine. For light see comments on 1.5.

“To shine,” or ‘to give light,’ ‘to be bright:’ some versions render the verb more generically in this context; for example, ‘to be spread,’ ‘to become visible.’

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 .