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 .

For this is the message which you have heard … that …, compare comments on 2.7. This points forward to the that clause, which gives the contents of the message. Some useful restructurings are “the message you heard … is this: we…” (Good News Translation), ‘there is a message…. It is that….’ The Greek verb is not in the perfect tense but in the aorist, which is to show that the reference is to action regarded as a completed whole, irrespective of its duration.

From the beginning refers to the beginning of the preaching of the gospel; compare comments on 2.7. But the wider context reminds the reader of the other meaning the phrase can have in this Letter; see Introduction, page 1.

That we should love one another: the verb is in the present tense, expressing duration.

It is important to note that this commandment to love is given as part of “the message you have heard,” that is, the gospel message. In John’s view gospel and commandment, though different, clearly are aspects of the same thing; both call the believers to a life that is free from 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 .

This verse repeats briefly what the author has already stated in verse 10.

We love: in the present verse the pronoun we has some emphasis and contrasts with he in the next clause. The Greek verb form may be taken as indicating a statement (Revised Standard Version and several other versions) or as an exhortation, ‘let us love’ (Zürcher Bibel, Bible de Jérusalem), preferably the former.

If a direct object must be added, it may be a reference to God, or to the brothers (which may lead to a reciprocal expression), or to both. The third possibility seems to be preferable.

He first loved us, or ‘he as the first (of the two agents mentioned) loved us,’ ‘he loved us before we did.’ The sequence of this and the preceding clause is sometimes better reversed; for example, ‘God loved us first; that is why we love (him and the brothers).’

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 antichrists, introduced in verse 18 as proof of the nearness of the “last hour,” in the present verse become the main topic of the discourse. The verse serves to specify the relationship that has existed between the congregation and the false teachers, and the present opposition between the two.

They went out from us, but they were not of us: the meaning of this sentence depends on the understanding of from and of. Both are expressed by the same Greek preposition (“out-of”), which can indicate origin, but also membership of a group.

The first clause, they went out from us, is meant to draw attention to the fact that the antichrists had been members of the congregation, as well as to the fact that they left it. This is brought out in such renderings as ‘these men went out from (or left) our company,’ ‘(it was) from among us (that) they went out.’ The verb “to go out from” is in the aorist, indicating that the reference is to a definite event in the past.

They were not of us: for “to be of” see comments on verse 16. The clause serves to say that the antichrists (that is, the false teachers) have been members only in the outward appearance of things, not in the full sense of the word; hence “these people really did not belong to our group” (Good News Translation), ‘they were not our real companions,’ ‘their hearts were not fully the same as ours.’

Further rearrangement of the sentence pattern is sometimes idiomatically preferable. It may result in a rendering like ‘they seemed to be (one) with us but now they have gone out.’

The whole sentence, if they had been of us, they would have continued with us, is given in a form that shows it to be contrary to fact. The if clause is the opposite of the preceding proposition.

The words they had been of us repeat what goes directly before, a repetition that is characteristic for John’s style. If idiom compels the translator to avoid such repetition, he may say, for example, ‘if that (really) had been so.’

The verb of the second clause, “to continue” (literally “to remain”), is in the pluperfect in the Greek, which tense has the force of a combined aorist and imperfect. It serves here to state that the false teachers would have been with us in the past and would still be with us in the present. This is sometimes better expressed negatively; for example, ‘they would not have left us.’

But they went out, that, literally “but in-order-that,” represents an ellipsis in the Greek. This ellipsis is to be filled out by repeating the verbal expression of the preceding clause (as Revised Standard Version does), or by adding a more generic expression; for example, ‘but this happened in order that.’

This construction occurs also in Mark 14.49 (the parallel Matt 26.56 is nonelliptical); John 1.8; 9.3; 13.18; 15.25. It often has the connotation of referring to something that is ordained by God. Therefore it can also be rendered by some phrase like ‘it had to become plain that they all are not of us.’

It might be plain is in the Greek literally “they might-be-shown,” then “they might become known” or “they might show themselves.” The subject is the same as that of the preceding verbs in the verse, namely, the antichrists. Some receptor languages follow the nonpersonal construction of Revised Standard Version; for example, ‘it might be shown,’ ‘it might become known,’ ‘it might become visible/clear.’ In others one can better shift to a rendering like ‘we (inconclusive) might see their situation clearly.’ The next clause indicates what that situation is.

They all are not of us: the Greek word order is “not they-are all of us.” Rendered as in Revised Standard Version, the subject they refers to the antichrists, whereas all emphasizes they, and not negates the predicate are … of us. Another possibility is that not negates all, and all … not means “none”; hence, ‘none of them is of us,’ “none of them really belonged to our group” (Good News Translation). Both interpretations are possible, and semantically they do not differ much, but the second one may be a better model of translation.

Quite a different interpretation is followed in versions that take all to be the subject and to refer to the congregation; compare ‘not all are of us’ (Nieuwe Vertaling), “not all in our company truly belong to it” (New English Bible). This interpretation would seem to be the less probable one for two reasons: (1) The shift of subject it presupposes would be rather unexpected in this verse. (2) To take not as restricting all (in the sense of “not all, only some of them”) would require a different Greek word order, namely, “not all they-are of us” instead of “not they-are all of us” (compare, for example, 1 Cor 10.23).

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 is still dependent on the “if” clause in verse 21. The two clauses show that love between God and the Christians is reciprocal; God shows his love by giving them what they ask for, and they show their love by doing what pleases him.

In we receive from him, the present tense again shows that the reference is to a present reality. The clause may have to be rendered ‘to us is given by him/God,’ ‘God gives us.’

For whatever we ask or, shifting to a temporal clause, ‘whenever we ask (him) for something,’ see comments on “whoever keeps” in 2.5. For comparable statements on asking a favor from God, see John 16.23-24, 26-27; and compare Matt 18.19; Mark 11.24; Luke 11.9-13; James 1.5.

Ask: for this request, which is addressed to a superior power, several versions use ‘to beseech/entreat,’ ‘to call upon,’ or an idiomatic phrase of the same meaning such as ‘to say poor,’ that is, to call attention to one’s situation, ‘to ask with one’s heart coming out (that is, very sincerely).’

Other versions prefer their term for “to pray.” Some idiomatic or descriptive renderings of that concept are ‘to talk to God,’ ‘to cause God to know,’ ‘to lift up one’s words to God.’ Terms referring to the reciting of long, often meaningless prayers, or having the connotation of irreverent insistence, should be avoided.

Because: the following clause indicates a certain parallelism between God’s acts of love for his children and the Christians’ acts of love for their Father. Therefore the conjunction because has the sense of ‘since,’ ‘in view of the fact that.’

For we keep his commandments, see comments on 2.3. The present tense of this and the following verb has durative force.

What pleases him in the Greek is literally “things pleasing before him.” Some other renderings used are ‘what he rejoices in,’ ‘things that make him happy.’ Sometimes idiomatic phrases serve to render the concept; for example, ‘what his heart considers good,’ ‘what fits his eye,’ ‘what his bowels are sweet with,’ ‘what arrives at his gall.’ For some further details compare A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Mark on 1.11.

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 .

If has factual force here; compare 4.11. The clause can therefore also be rendered ‘We receive the testimony of men, but…’

We receive, that is, ‘we accept (as true),’ or more emphatically, ‘we never doubt.’ The pronoun has inclusive force here and in verse 11.

The testimony of men, or “the witness that men give” (Good News Translation), ‘what human witnesses say,’ ‘what men declare to be true.’ For testimony, here in the passive sense of “what is said by a witness,” compare “to testify” in 1.2.

The testimony of God is greater, or ‘the witness that God gives (or what God declares to be true) is greater,’ namely, ‘than that of men,’ which may have to be added. In this context greater often has to be rendered by ‘more important,’ ‘more worthy of acceptance,’ ‘more enforcing of belief.’

The second half of verse 9 explains why God’s testimony is to be called greater. Accordingly for has explanatory force; hence, for example, ‘this, namely, is the testimony…’

This is the testimony of God that he has borne witness to his Son: just as in verses 11 and 14, this points forward; the explanatory clause is that he has borne witness to his Son. This clause does not state the contents of God’s testimony but refers to its divine origin; it is God himself, who has borne witness to his Son. As such the value of this testimony surpasses that of all and any other testimonies about Jesus.

To bring out this meaning the sentence may have to be adjusted; for example, ‘that testimony is characterized by (or is valuable because of) the fact that God himself has borne witness to his Son’; or, changing the clause order, ‘it is God himself who has borne witness to his Son; that is how his testimony is,’ or simply ‘this witness God himself has given about his Son.’

The testimony of God parallels the testimony of men. Adjustments or restructurings in the one should also be used in the other, as far as idiom permits.

He has borne witness to his Son, or ‘he has given testimony (or has declared the truth) about his Son,’ ‘he has declared who his Son really is.’ For “to bear witness” compare again comments on “to testify” in 1.2; for his Son see comments on 1.3.

The verb “to bear witness” is in the perfect tense in the Greek, in contrast to the present tense of the participle of the same verb used in verses 7 and 8a (= verses 6c and 7 in Greek New Testament and others). This is to show that the reference in the present verse is to something in the past, namely, in the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry, which still influences the present; compare John 5.31-47, especially verse 37.

The interpretation of verse 9 given above is represented in several versions, among which are Revised Standard Version, Goodspeed, Nieuwe Vertaling, Zürcher Bibel. Many other versions follow an interpretation which differs from it mainly in two points:

(1) The pronoun this is taken as pointing back and referring to the testimony of the three witnesses (verse 7). This is less probable, however, because in the same construction in verses 11 and 14 it clearly points forward. Moreover, the difference in tense (perfect tense here, present tense in verse 7) is against a close association with the testimony of the three witnesses.

(2) The second clause of verse 9b is taken as a relative clause going with testimony of God. This agrees with a variant reading of the Greek text, but, textually speaking, that reading is decidedly inferior to the reading given in Greek New Testament and preferred above.

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 .

We have no sin: constructions of “to have” with nouns like “fellowship” (1.3, 6-7), “sin” (1.8), “life” (3.15; 5.12-13), “love” (4.16), “joy” (3 John 4), “confidence” (2.28; 3.21; 4.17; 5.14) often occur in the Johannine writings. The verb then refers to inner possession and shows a person to be in a certain condition, or to have a certain emotion, which influences him continually. Thus “to have sin” means that one has the source and principle of sin in oneself and is continually dominated by it. The expression does not refer here to sinful deeds (as it did in verse 7) but to a sinful attitude that is the source of sinful deeds, and implies personal guilt. Some ways to render the clause are “we claim to be sinless” (New English Bible), ‘we have no evil in our head-hearts,’ ‘we are persons who never sin.’

We deceive ourselves. The Greek verb occurs often in the passive, meaning “to be led astray.” Here the reflexive form is used in order to show that the persons concerned are held responsible; hence, for example, ‘we are leading ourselves astray,’ ‘we take the wrong road,’ or better, to bring out the metaphorical use, ‘we are leading our hearts astray,’ ‘our thoughts follow the wrong road,’ ‘we are turning our heads,’ ‘we are fooling ourselves (literally causing ourselves to be stupid).’

The truth is not in us. The present tense has durative force. The clause means to say that the truth is not in us and this will remain so. Thus the situation of the false teachers, who claim to know God, is shown to be quite the contrary of what they claim.

† Truth is used here (and often elsewhere in the Johannine writings) with another shade of meaning than in verse 6, namely, as a reference to God’s own truthfulness. God is truthful in that his acting and speaking cover each other completely. Thus God’s truth constitutes his real being and revealing activity, giving life and freedom to man. Therefore he keeps faith with his worshippers, doing what he has promised; compare, for example, Exo 34.6. The term is used in this sense also in 2.4, 21b; 3.19; 4.6; 2 John 1b, 2; 3 John 8; compare also 1 John 5.7.

† In the writings of John the phrase “to be in” serves to express a very close and intimate relationship of Christ with God or God with Christ (John 17.21), of men with God or God with men (1 John 2.5; 5.20; and 4.4), of an aspect of God’s being (as represented by Christ) with men (here), or of the devil with the world (4.4). Compare also “to abide in” (see comments on 2.6), which emphasizes the continuity of the relationship. Some renderings used are ‘to live in,’ ‘to be one with,’ ‘to belong to,’ ‘to be before,’ ‘to be in the presence of,’ ‘to be in the innermost of’ (that is, to agree with, to act according to the will of, TBT, 20.79-80, 1969).

In the present case it is often preferable to change the structure of the clause, taking “we” as the subject. This leads to such renderings as ‘we are not familiar with the truth (of God),’ ‘we do not have the truth (of God) in our heart,’ ‘we have not the true One/God in our heart.’

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 .

See has here semantically the same function as the expression “behold,” which often occurs in other New Testament books (compare A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Luke on 1.20). The word serves to call the reader’s attention to what follows.

In some cases the receptor language verb ‘to see’ can be used idiomatically in this meaning; for example, ‘let’s see’ in one American Indian language. But in most receptor languages usage requires the imperative of another verb such as ‘consider,’ ‘think,’ ‘notice,’ ‘remember,’ ‘hear.’ Some translators do not render the word explicitly but stress the exclamatory form of the clause, as in “How great is the love that…!” (New English Bible).

What love the Father has given us, or ‘what great love the Father has given us,’ ‘how much/greatly the Father has loved us.’

What is in the Greek literally “what kind of.” Here it is expressing high degree; hence ‘how glorious/wonderful.’ For love see comments on 2.5, and for the Father see comments on 1.2.

Has given us: the verb is in the perfect tense, to show that God’s gracious gift determines the present situation. In some cases one can better say ‘has for us,’ ‘has shown us.’ The first person plural pronoun in verses 1-2, 11, 14, 16, 18-24 is inclusive; compare comments on “the preacher’s ‘we’ ” in 1.6.

That we should be called children of God gives the measure, and so explains the greatness of God’s love. The sentence formed by this and the preceding clause is sometimes better made into two sentences; for example, “See how much the Father has loved us! His love is so great that we are called God’s children” (Good News Translation).

Be called, or ‘be named,’ ‘have the name/title’: the implied agent of the passive form is “the Father.” Where one has to use active forms, one may say ‘that he should call us God’s children.’ If this would suggest that ‘the Father’ and ‘God’ are different persons, this may have to become ‘that he should call us his children’ or, making explicit the implied direct discourse, ‘that he should call us (or say of us), “My children,” ’ as is preferable in some languages.

† Children of God occurs also in 3.2, 10; 5.2; John 1.12; 11.52. In this Letter all occurrences follow a passage where the believers are said to be “born of God.” John uses the expression with reference to the Christian believers but never calls them “sons of God.” Paul’s usage differs from John’s in that he refers to the believers both as “children of God” and “sons of God” (Rom 8.16-17 and 19), and views them as God’s children by adoption (Rom 8.15).

The Greek term rendered “child” refers to parent-child relationship rather than to age (for further details compare A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Luke on 1.7). It is used here metaphorically to describe the intimate relationship which God has made possible between himself and the believers. The phrase is preferably to be rendered literally.

And so we are (in the Greek “and we are”), or “and so, in fact, we are” (Good News Translation), ‘and we really are God’s/his children,’ ‘and it is true’; or again, making explicit that the contrast is between “to be called” and “to be,” “not only called, we really are his children” (New English Bible, footnote, and compare Phillips).

The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him: the connecting thought is that, since children are like their father, their character can only be known from that of their father. To bring this out it may be preferable to render him by ‘the/our Father.’

The reason why … that, more literally “because-of this … that.” The construction with these two connectives allows two interpretations:

(1) Revised Standard Version and nearly all other versions investigated take “because-of this” as pointing forward and corresponding with that. The same construction is found in John 5.16, 18; 12.39. Other possible renderings here are ‘the reason why the world does not know us is this: it has not known him/the Father,’ ‘the world does not know us, since it has not known the Father,’ or changing the clause sequence, ‘the world does not know the Father, therefore they (it) cannot know us.’

(2) Some commentators and translators take ‘because-of this’ as pointing backward, namely, to the fact that “we” are God’s children. Then the that clause has the function of an additional explanation; hence, for example, ‘For this reason the world does not know us, for it has also not known him (or the Father)’ or ‘which explains why the world will no more recognize us than it recognized him’ (compare Phillips). In the opinion of the present authors, (2) is probably to be preferred, since it brings out better the connection between the two sentences of verse 1.

For the world see comments on 2.15, definition (5). Some renderings used here are “the godless world” (New English Bible), ‘those who only follow the world,’ ‘people who are concerned about just what is happening on this earth.’

The verb “to know” (for which see comments on 2.3) occurs first in the present tense, then in the aorist. The present has durative force here; the aorist indicates that the action is regarded as a completed whole, regardless of its duration; hence ‘up till now it has never known him.’ Another, but less probable, interpretation of the aorist is that it refers to a fact in the past, namely, the manifestation of God’s grace in Jesus (compare 1 John 1.10).

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 .