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 .

For Beloved (here and in verses 7 and 11) see comments on 2.7.

Do not believe every spirit means do not trust every spirit to speak the truth, do not accept as true what every spirit says. For the verb see comments on 3.23.

Spirit is used here with the meaning “spirit of man.” It refers to the seat or source of man’s insight, feeling, and will; compare comments below on meaning (2). One may have to make explicit this specific meaning, for example, by using here ‘every man’s spirit,’ ‘every human spirit.’

In the Biblical view of life, the spirit of those who serve God is somehow connected with or inspired by God’s Spirit. At the same time a man’s spirit may be said to represent that man himself. This may lead to such a rendering of verse 1a as “do not believe all who claim to have the Spirit, but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God” (Good News Translation), using the word in question first in the meaning “Spirit of God,” next in the meaning “spirit of man.” It may be preferable, however, to use the term only in one meaning. Then one may keep to Good News Bible for the first part of the sentence but change the second into ‘whether what they have comes from God,’ ‘whether it is the Spirit of God they have.’ Or one may render the whole sentence as ‘do not believe everyone, but examine thoroughly whether it is God’s Spirit which inspires them (or which they have).’ In these renderings the word is used only in the meaning “Spirit of God,” in which meaning it occurs also in verse 2a.

The alternatives discussed are equally possible. The translator is free to choose the one that best fits the possibilities and the limitations of the terms for “spirit” in the receptor language.

† The Greek word translated spirit (also in 3.24; 4.2-3, 6, 13; 5.[6,] 7-8) has a very wide area of meaning: (1) “movement of air,” “wind” (John 3.8a), “breath,” “vital principle,” “(life-)spirit”; (2) the source or seat of man’s insight, feeling, and will, the representative part of the inner life of man. Since spirit is that which leaves a person at death (compare Matt 27.50; Luke 23.46; John 19.30), it is also used to designate (3) the human soul after it has left the body, and (4) other incorporeal beings, not human, such as angels, good and bad spirits, which have the power of knowing, desiring, and acting, and are thought of as having some kind of personality.

Finally, the word occurs to designate (5) “the Spirit” in the sense of “God’s Spirit,” “the Holy Spirit.” Used in this meaning it refers to that which differentiates God from everything that is not God, to the divine power that produces all divine existence, to the divine element in which all divine life is carried on, and to the bearer of every application of the divine will. All those who belong to God possess or receive “the Spirit” and hence have a share in his life. The having of “the Spirit” can also serve to distinguish the Christians from all unbelievers.

Some languages have one term that can be used in all, or almost all, occurrences of the term concerned; for example, “spirit” in English, geest and cognates in Dutch and some other Germanic languages. The same is reported from some Indic or Indonesian languages, using words related to Sanskrit atman ‘breath (of life),’ or jiwa ‘life-principle,’ or to the Arabic ruh ‘breath (of-life).’ But in many other languages two or more distinctive terms must be used.

As to the rendering of meanings (1), (2), (3), and (4), the difficulty is usually not so much how to find possible terms in the receptor languages, but rather how to choose the most appropriate term, or terms, and to decide which one to use where. The reason for this difficulty is that in the receptor language the semantic fields covered by the term in question are not any more neatly divided and kept apart than the meanings of the Greek word.

Meaning (2), which is found in the present verse, has been rendered in some versions by ‘thoughts,’ ‘mind,’ or ‘disposition’ (in one language literally ‘following,’ referring to ways of thinking and believing and the acts connected with them). A few others have shifted to ‘word(s),’ probably due to the consideration that what one says is an indication of what is in one’s mind. As a rule this shift is not to be recommended, especially because “spirit” has a wider application than “word,” and the two belong to different semantic domains.

It is the rendering of meaning (5), “the Spirit” in the sense of “the Holy Spirit,” “the Spirit of God” (see verse 2), which forms the most crucial problem.

Some translators have tried to express this meaning by a term for “wind,” or for “soul-stuff.” This is less satisfactory, however, since such a term usually lacks the concept of personality.

Others have used ‘breath/vital-principle’ with good results. In some cultures, however, God is viewed as giving such a vital-principle to animate beings and plants, but not as having or requiring it himself, since he is of another order of existence. Consequently, to say that God has the vital principle would mean equalling him to earthly beings.

Others, again, have successfully employed a term of category (2). Then one of the dangers the translator has to be aware of in some cultures is that ‘the spirit’ in this sense is part of the living person and can only be thought of as an independent entity when that person has died. Therefore the use of a term of category (2) may imply that the Holy Spirit was the product of God’s death.

Finally one may use a rendering that belongs to category (4), referring to incorporeal beings, not humans. This is, again, a possibility that should be carefully verified, because terms of this kind often have a connotation of evil intent.

To avoid the problems and uncertainties just mentioned, several translators prefer to use a borrowing, such as Espiritu (Santo) in some Latin American languages. This is sometimes the most acceptable (or the least unacceptable!) solution for one or more reasons. One of these may be that the concept could otherwise be rendered only by a long and unwieldy descriptive phrase; another, that the language community prefers to designate important religious concepts by a borrowing from the prestige language in the area. Yet a borrowing should not be chosen easily, for often it means next to nothing to the monolinguals among the local people, and very little even to those who are bilingual, having a reasonable command of the prestige language.

These and similar considerations may make it preferable to use descriptive phrases for “the Spirit” such as ‘that which comes from God,’ ‘strength of God.’ Such renderings, though newly-coined expressions, or giving only one or two of the main semantic components, may prove to be more meaningful than a borrowed term would have been in the language concerned. For further details on the rendering of spirit, compare A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Mark on 1.8; TBT 7 (1956):162-163; 8 (1957):146-148; also 17 (1966):32-38 (treating the problems that arise in connection with the choice of personal or nonpersonal class prefixes and concords in Bantu languages).

Test the spirits to see whether they are of God: for possible adjustments see the preceding comment. The clause exhorts the readers to look carefully whether or not a person’s behavior and words show that his spirit is inspired by God’s Spirit and has divine quality.

The combination test … to see renders one Greek verb that refers to examination and evaluation. It is sometimes rendered by words basically meaning ‘to seek/search,’ ‘to measure,’ ‘to taste,’ ‘to try (out),’ ‘to weigh,’ ‘to see the goodness of.’ In one language ‘to test’ can have the bad connotation of ‘to cast a spell on.’ Therefore that translator had to say ‘do not mistake where the spirit comes from.’

To see has to be added in English to make the connection between test and the dependent clause. A similar addition may be necessary in some receptor languages, using ‘to find out,’ ‘to judge/decide,’ ‘so that you may know,’ or something similar. Other languages do not need such a connecting verb or phrase.

Whether introduces an indirect question that may have to be rendered as a direct one; for example, ‘examine the spirits to find out (or to judge), “This spirit, is it of God (or not)?” ’ For “to be (not) of” (here and verses 2-4, 6) see comments on 2.16.

Many false prophets have gone out into the world: this is the reason why testing of the spirits is necessary now. It is also the sign that the last days are near (compare such passages as Mark 13.22 and 1 John 2.18). Some versions place the clause at the beginning of the verse; this helps to indicate that in 4.1 the discourse shifts again to a controversy with the false teachers.

False prophet is used only here in the Letters of John. The word may refer to a man who claims falsely to be a prophet, or to a prophet who prophesies falsely, that is, who says what is not in accordance with what God told him to say. Some translators give a rendering that covers both meanings; for example, ‘speakers pretending to be (literally throwing-themselves-to-be) prophets; their word is empty,’ or ‘deceivers who think they have the spirit of God.’ Such a rendering is good but rather wordy. Several translators prefer to use a shorter term or phrase, even if it expresses only one of the meanings. This is quite acceptable here, since either meaning fits the context. Some renderings of this kind are ‘prophets falsely inspired,’ ‘deceiver-prophets,’ ‘speakers of falsehood,’ ‘empty speakers’ (used in verse 4 as a shortening of the more comprehensive rendering quoted above).

The basic meaning of prophet is not one who foretells the future but one who speaks on behalf of God. Some of the translations used are ‘interpreter for God,’ ‘God’s town crier,’ ‘one who discloses/reveals,’ ‘a word-passer,’ ‘God’s sent-word person,’ ‘one-whom-God-works,’ ‘one who speaks under divine impulse,’ ‘holy spokesman.’ For these and further details see A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Mark on 1.2; A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Luke on 1.70.

Have gone out into the world: the perfect tense indicates that they have gone out in the past (namely, to lead people astray), and that the results thereof are being felt up to the time of speaking.

In “to go out into” the reference is to the place they go into rather than to the place they go out from; hence such renderings as ‘many false prophets have spread out (or are going about, or are at large) in this world,’ or ‘this world is full of (many) false prophets.’ For the world see comments on 2.15, meaning (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 .

Again John expresses his thought, first positively, next negatively. The negative clause is worded more emphatically than the positive one (see below). This agrees with the fact that the verse is polemic, argumentative. It is aimed at the false teachers, who pretended that they had fuller knowledge of and fellowship with the Son than their opponents, and consequently boasted that they “had the Son.” John has suggested already that their claim is not true (compare 2.3-4 and 1.6), and now also argues effectively against their boast.

He who has the Son has life, or ‘when a person has the Son, he has life,’ naturally follows from the preceding proposition that life is in the Son. The present tense is used here to bring out that the situation exists now and will continue. The two occurrences of “to have” are in the same tense to show that having the Son and having life occur together. This is to express that during this earthly life already the believer participates in the eternal life, because he has the Son, in whom this life exists.

“To have” with a person as object has here the sense of “to have close fellowship with,” “to be (joined/united) with,” “to be a disciple of”; compare also comments on “to have the Father” in 2.23. At its second occurrence, with life as subject, the verb means “to be in full and continuous possession of.” For the Son see comments on 2.22.

It may be possible to use the same, or almost the same, rendering of the verb in both occurrences; for example, ‘possesses the Son – possesses life,’ ‘is joined to the Son – is joined to life,’ ‘has the Son in his heart – has life’; or ‘receives the Son – receives that he will not die,’ as one language has it; or again, with a syntactic shift, ‘in the person in whom the Son dwells/is, life dwells/is.’ But in other cases differentiation is required; for example, where has life must be rendered as ‘lives forever.’

He who has not the Son of God has not life: the wording of this negative clause parallels that of the positive one. But the fuller designation Son of God, and the more emphatic position life has in the Greek, give more impact to this negative statement.

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 .

As mentioned in the general note on 1.5–2.11, the first sentence of chapter 2 (ending with a semicolon in Revised Standard Version, but with a period in the Greek texts of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament and Nestle) interrupts the discourse structure. To mark the interruption one may begin a new paragraph, or one may place the sentence between dashes or brackets. John probably felt that 1.10 might be misunderstood as meaning that sin is inescapable, or even that it is the presupposition of forgiveness. Therefore he now interrupts himself in order to warn his readers that nothing he is about to say must be understood as giving freedom to sin.

My little children, preferably ‘my dear children,’ since the Greek diminutive form expresses intimacy rather than age. The vocative is sometimes to be explicitly marked, for example, by inserting ‘you’ or an exclamatory particle at the beginning of the phrase. The Greek noun occurs in John 13.33, where Jesus is the speaker, and 1 John 2.1, 12, 28; 3.7, 18; 4.4; 5.21. In the present verse and 3.18 the Greek has the possessive pronoun. In the other occurrences this is not the case, but a relationship with the speaker is implied nevertheless, and often it is better made explicit in the receptor language.

The word children is applied here metaphorically to a person’s spiritual children. Accordingly the whole phrase serves as a friendly and intimate form of address used by a teacher towards his disciples or, more generally, by a leading person towards people, not necessarily of a younger generation, who are in need of his advice. In many receptor languages children can be used in such a metaphorical sense. If not, one may have to shift from metaphor to simile, and usually also from address to statement; for example, ‘you are as if you were my own children, therefore I am writing this to you.’

I am writing this to you: here (and in 2.7, 12-14, 21, 26; 5.13, 16) John refers to himself in the singular to give his exhortation a personal effect. In these cases he does not view himself as representative of the eyewitnesses, as he does when using “we” (with exclusive force) in 1.1-4, nor does he include himself with his readers, as he does when using “we” (inclusive) in 1.5-10, and again in the last clause of the present verse, and in 2.2-3, 5. In some receptor languages the use of the pronoun ‘I’ is undesirable under certain circumstances and must be replaced by the speaker’s title, such as ‘teacher.’

Am writing: for this verb form, and for the meaning the verb has here, see comments on 1.4.

By using the pronoun this, that is, ‘this message,’ ‘these things,’ John refers back especially to 1.10, but in a more general way to what he has said in 1.5-10 about sins still existing in the congregation.

So that you may not sin, or “my purpose is that you should not commit sin” (New English Bible), ‘to help you to avoid sin.’ The aorist tense probably indicates that the verb refers to the actual doing of evil (compare 1.10) rather than to an existing or expected inclination to do evil. The same holds true of “does sin” in the next sentence.

But if any one does sin is in strong contrast to the preceding clause. It means to say: in the case that, nevertheless, any one is going to act in a way that is contrary to the way he should act. According to the punctuation of Greek New Testament, this is a new sentence that introduces the reference to the demands and promises of the gospel. As such it contrasts to 1.10 in a way similar to that of 1.7 or 1.9, where each contrasts to the directly preceding verse (see again the general note on 1.5–2.11).

In this clause the writer does not use “we,” including all Christians together, but any one, focussing on individual cases that may exist. The difference should not be pressed, however, as shown by the fact that the next clauses, which continue the line of thought, use “we” again.

We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: the closing phrase, which is in apposition to advocate, serves to explain who the advocate is. To bring this out, an explanatory connective may have to be inserted; for example, ‘that is, Jesus Christ the righteous.’ The adjective righteous is best taken as a predicate, adding a new trait to the argument. It serves to make the reader aware of the fact that Jesus, since he does what is right before God, is man’s most effective advocate with God. His prayers for man are not hindered by sin and therefore will certainly be heard by God (compare John 9.31; James 5.16).

If the clause has to be restructured, one may say, for example, ‘we have an advocate (or, there is someone who pleads for us) with the Father. It is Jesus Christ, who is righteous,’ or ‘Jesus Christ pleads for us with his Father. He does what is right before him.’ The last mentioned rendering is only possible, of course, if the pronoun ‘him’ clearly refers to ‘his Father.’

In the clause we have an advocate with the Father, the verb is in the present tense to indicate that the reference is to what is a fact now and will continue to be so. The preposition with may be interpreted as referring to the place where the advocate is, and so it can be rendered ‘near to,’ ‘before,’ ‘at the side of.’ Or it may refer to the person whom the advocate is to address, namely, the Father. The first interpretation is preferable in view of the syntactic position of the phrase. Ultimately, however, the two interpretations amount much to the same thing, since the fact that Jesus is at the Father’s side implies that he is in the position to address himself to the Father on behalf of his followers. Therefore the second interpretation may be followed, if it suits the context better in the receptor language; for example, ‘Jesus Christ is the one who speaks on our behalf to his Father.’ For the Father see 1.2.

Advocate, literally “who-is-called-to-one’s-side,” is used here in an active meaning, “who comes to a person’s side,” then “who comes to help a person,” either as a counselor who teaches and admonishes (as in John 14.16; 15.26), or as an advocate who pleads one’s case with another person (this is the meaning used here). The latter meaning has been rendered by such expressions as ‘one who speaks on behalf of,’ ‘a beside-us speaker,’ ‘one going between,’ namely, in order to establish or restore friendly relations, ‘one who defends (literally saves by speaking).’

“To be an advocate” and “to intercede” (compare Rom 8.34; Heb 7.25) are two aspects of the function of Christ. Renderings may closely resemble each other, or in some languages they may even need to be combined in one expression.

For righteous see “just” in 1.9. In the Greek the word is without the article here. Some versions take it as a title of Jesus Christ. This is less probable than the interpretation given above, for a title would be in an appositional construction, and that construction normally requires the article in the Greek.

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 right understanding of verse 4 depends on the interpretation of the term lawlessness. This word is often synonymous with sin; compare “those whose wrongs (literally lawlessness) God has forgiven, whose sins he has covered up” (Rom 4.7, Good News Bible), “I will not remember their sins and wicked deeds (literally lawlessness) any longer” (Heb 10.17, Good News Bible), both reflecting the usage of the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. In the present passage the word is rendered thus in many versions. This results, however, in a truism, since the proposition becomes an equation of two closely synonymous terms. It is therefore not probable that John intended the word to be taken in this meaning.

To reach a more convincing interpretation of the term lawlessness in the present verse, one should note that in verse 4b this Greek noun, although in predicate position, is used with the article. This is done in the Greek only when the predicated noun is presented as something well known or as the only thing to be considered, as a technical term, so to speak.

Now in other passages lawlessness seems indeed to serve as a technical term for the Satan-inspired rejection of God and his law that will be manifest in the present age and will come to a climax before Christ’s second coming; compare for example, Matt 7.22-23 (where “evil doers” literally is “those working the lawlessness”), Matt 24.11-13 (where “wickedness” stands for “the lawlessness”), and 2 Cor 6.14-16, where “iniquity” (literally “lawlessness”) is mentioned together with “darkness” and “Belial,” that is, the Devil. A related word is used with reference to Christ’s great adversary, whose rebellion will also reach its summit in that period; compare what 2 Thes 2.1-12 tells about “the lawless one,” “the man of lawlessness,” and “the mystery of lawlessness.” Though the terms differ, Paul’s “lawless one” and John’s “antichrist” (compare 1 John 2.18) express the same concept.

Interpreted along these lines, lawlessness certainly is much more forceful than sin, forming a climax to it. Then the two clauses of the verse characterize the sinner as one who takes sides with the great adversary of God and Christ, and sin as the ultimate wickedness, the rebellion against God. Accordingly these clauses form an apt introduction to the urgent warnings against sin contained in verses 5-10.

Who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness is in the Greek literally “the one who does sin does the lawlessness also.” The word “also” is used to make the lawlessness stand out in relief, and thus to stress its function as technical term, as discussed above.

To bring out this interpretation one may have to restructure the clause; for example, ‘who commits sin does what is (characteristic for) Lawlessness,’ ‘who sins is living in (accordance with) Lawlessness,’ ‘if a person sins it is like the Lawless One that he is acting,’ ‘who sins does what the Lawless One does (or sides with the Lawless One).’

“To commit sin” occurs also in verses 8-9. It is sometimes to be rendered simply as ‘to sin.’ For the construction (in the Greek literally “to do sin”) see comments on “to live according to the truth” in 1.6; for sin see comments on 1.7. The Greek article has generic force here, showing that each single sin is viewed as a manifestation of man’s general sinfulness.

Is, here and in the next clause, is in the present tense, characterizing the proposition as a general truth.

Lawlessness is a quite literal rendering of the Greek term. It means the negation of whatever is comprised in the concept “law” (which stands for God’s utterances, commands, and promises, which reveal his purpose for man). Some attempts to bring out this meaning are ‘breaking/destroying/violating God’s law,’ ‘rejection of God’s law (or of God),’ ‘disobedience (to God),’ ‘rebellion,’ ‘godlessness.’ Resulting renderings of the clause may be ‘everyone who commits sin is living in godlessness,’ ‘if a person sins, he sides with the Rebellious One,’ ‘who sins actually is doing what the Breaker of God’s law does.’

Sin is lawlessness, or, in accordance with the preceding remarks, ‘sin has the quality of Lawlessness (or of Rejection of God, or Rebellion),’ or ‘sin is what the Lawless (or Disobedient) One does.’

Verses 5-8 form one paragraph, included between two sentences (verse 5a and verse 8b) that express the same thought. For this stylistic figure of inclusion, see comments on 2.18. The form of address, “little children,” further divides this paragraph into two parts, verses 5-6 and verses 7-8.

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 .

No man has ever seen God: the false teachers probably boasted that in moments of ecstasy they were given the vision of God. In this verse (compare also John 1.18a; 5.37; 6.46) John rejects this idea. He is convinced that man in this present age cannot see God face to face, although, through Jesus Christ, he can know how God is (compare John 14.9 and 1.18b).

For “to see” in connection with God (here and in verse 14), see comments on 1.1. In 4.20 the more common Greek verb for seeing is used with the same meaning.

For God abides in us, see comments on the second occurrence of “to abide” in 3.24.

For his love is perfected in us, compare comments on 2.5. The possessive pronoun most likely refers to God as the one who loves. The verb form used here in the Greek is a compound perfect, which is probably slightly more emphatic than the simple perfect form used in 2.5 and 4.17.

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 group addressed as little children can best be taken to comprise the congregation as a whole, not a certain age group. A positive argument for this interpretation is the use of the term little children in 1 John 2.1 (which see). A negative one is this: if the author had intended an age group parallel to that of “the fathers” and “the young men,” one would expect another sequence, namely, children, young men, fathers.

For I am writing see 2.1. In verses 12-13b John uses the present tense of “to write,” in verses 13c and 14 the aorist tense; the latter may be rendered also “I have written” (New English Bible). This variation is probably a matter of style rather than meaning.

Because (here and in the five next sentences): the Greek conjunction can mean either “because” or “that.” Many versions (among them Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation) have “because,” but “that” seems to be more probable, since John is stressing some vital truths of Christian life. To do so he can better be understood as repeating what he has said than as saying why he has said it.

For your sins are forgiven, see comments on 1.7 and 9. The perfect tense indicates a situation in the present that is the result of an event or act in the past. The implied agent is God, not Christ.

For his sake is in the Greek literally “because of his name.” For “name” see comments on 3.23. The pronoun refers to Jesus Christ; hence, for example, ‘on Jesus Christ’s account,’ ‘because of what Jesus Christ did.’

A literal rendering of the Greek expression is to be avoided in many receptor languages, because it would make the expression unintelligible. It may also be misleading, for example, because it suggests that the pronouncing of Jesus Christ’s name has a magic effect.

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 author is alluding to the rule given in Gen 9.6, “he that sheds the blood of a man, for that man his blood shall be shed” (New English Bible). He applies this rule figuratively to the new life of the Christian. The verse probably serves to explain verse 14; hence “for everyone who hates…” (New English Bible). Most versions, however, do not specify a connection.

Who hates his brother, see comments on 2.9.

Is a murderer is to be taken as a metaphorical application of verses 11-12. The clause serves to make clear that hatred is close to murder, being the first step toward it and belonging to the same moral category.

Murderer: in form the Greek term, literally “man-killer,” is not related to the verb used in verse 12. In meaning it is the more generic of the two in that it does not suggest violent passion. If the word is to be rendered by a phrase, one may say ‘one who kills people.’

You know: some versions give a less prominent position to this phrase by subordinating it; for example, “no murderer, as you know, has eternal life” (New English Bible). This has the advantage of contrasting more closely and directly the preceding and the present clause, which say who is a murderer, and what a murderer cannot have, respectively.

No murderer has eternal life abiding in him: for the construction “to have eternal life” compare comments on “to have … sin” in 1.8. The expression means that one is in a condition characterized as, and influenced by, eternal life or, otherwise stated, that one has the source and principle of eternal life in oneself. The present tense of “to have” has durative force. The participial phrase abiding in him does not add a new fact but serves to emphasize the concept of duration.

Possible restructurings and adjustments of the clause are ‘a murderer cannot be and remain in possession of eternal/true life,’ ‘eternal/true life cannot be and continue to be dwelling in a murderer,’ ‘to kill people and to live for the age to come can never go together.’ For eternal life see comments on 1.1-2; for abiding in see comments on 2.14.

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 .