This verse has a transitional function. The relative clause who … in him recalls to mind the thought of verse 5 in order to lead up to its Christian application: one can only be and remain in God if one behaves as Christ behaved. This reference to Christ’s example implies a command to follow him. Thus the verse serves to introduce the discussion of the new and the old commandment in verses 7-8, and of the commandment to love one’s brother in verses 9-11.

He who says, see 1 John 2.4.

(That) he abides in him: unlike verse 4 this proposition is in indirect discourse—which may nevertheless require a rendering in direct discourse, of course. The second pronoun, him, refers to God.

† Abides in is a characteristic Johannine expression. It is used (a) of man remaining in God or Christ, as here and in 2.24c, 27b , 28; 3.6, 24a; 4.13, 16, and (elliptically) in 4.15b; (b) of God remaining in man, see “he abides in us” in 3.24; (c) of man remaining in something nonpersonal, see comments on 2.10; and (d) of something nonpersonal remaining in man, see comments on 2.14.

The meaning of the verb is “to be-and-remain in/with.” Here it has been rendered as ‘to be constantly present with (or joined to),’ ‘to continue in/with,’ ‘to keep in union with.’

He … ought to walk in the same way in which he walked is in the Greek literally “he … has-the-obligation (that) just-as that-one walked he-himself also be-walking.” The subject of the last clause of the Greek sentence is emphatic, and this should be brought out also in restructured renderings; compare for example “he … ought himself to live as Christ lived” (Translators’ Translation). Of the two verb forms, the first, “walked,” is in the aorist tense, indicating an action that has been performed once in the past, the second, “be-walking,” is in the present tense, indicating habitual action.

He ought expresses obligation or duty. It is rendered negatively in some languages, ‘it cannot but he,’ ‘it is still wanting/lacking that he.’

To walk in the same way in which he walked, or ‘to act/behave just like Jesus Christ did (or acted/behaved)’: a metaphorical equivalent used is ‘to follow in the footsteps of Jesus Christ.’ For to walk see comments on 1.6.

† He (in the second occurrence of this clause) renders Greek ekeinos “that one.” This Greek demonstrative pronoun occurs also in 3.3, 5, 7, 16; 4.17. In all these passages it refers to Christ, and in many languages it is to be rendered as “(Jesus) Christ.” Here it is evidently used to show that the reference is not the same as that of the third person pronouns in the verse. Consequently, to use the same pronoun in all cases (as done in Revised Standard Version and some other versions) is objectionable, since it does not distinguish references that are explicitly kept apart 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 .

Revised Standard Version has the major break after commits sin; Greek New Testament, Nestle, and several versions have it after abides in him. With the latter punctuation the verse contains two parallel sentences, each stating first a fact, then the reason for it. Such a clause structure is the more probable one.

No one born of God commits sin expresses the fact that the believers do not sin because they have been born of God. The same thought is expressed in 5.18a; compare also 5.4, where the consequence mentioned is “overcomes the world.”

In other passages the Christians’ behavior is viewed, not as the consequence, but as the proof of their being born of God; compare 2.29; 4.7; 5.1. This shows once more that what one is and what one does form a unity in John’s opinion.

Born of God, see comments on “born of him” in 2.29. One should understand this phrase and the comparable expression “children of God” (verse 10, and compare verse 1) from the terminology of baptism. This rite, marking the entrance into the new life in Christ, was compared with birth (compare John 3.3-8), and those who were baptized were compared with children who were being born. In this line of thought God, with whom lies the ultimate initiative in conversion and baptism, could be called “the one who begets (or causes to be born)” (compare 5.1, in Revised Standard Version rendered “the parent”).

God’s nature abides in him: the expression God’s nature is in the Greek literally “his seed.” This Greek phrase can best be interpreted metaphorically as a reference to the source of life which God implants in the believer. The choice of it is in tune with that of the preceding metaphor. Just as the male seed is the ultimate cause of a child’s life beginning at birth, so God’s regenerating power is the ultimate cause of the Christian’s new life beginning at baptism.

Now the term “seed” is normally associated with the ideas of growth, development, and change. Therefore one expects in this clause a verb like “to grow,” “to develop,” or “to change.” John, however, does not use some such verb but says “his seed abides in him.” This favorite phrase of his certainly does not refer to change but to continuity (compare “to abide” in 2.14). This means that the imagery underlying the metaphorical use of “seed” has been abandoned in the second part of the clause.

This switch in John’s thought makes the clause difficult to understand and to translate. Various interpretations are reflected in the translations investigated:

(1) “His seed” is interpreted as a reference to God’s nature. Then the clause says that the believer has come to share God’s nature or characteristics, and so is in his likeness; hence, for example, ‘God’s (very) nature remains in him’ (compare Revised Standard Version, Goodspeed, Good News Translation, and others), ‘God’s own-innermost remains in him’; or, with further adjustments, ‘he possesses God’s mind,’ or ‘he takes after his Father’ (Bijbel in Gewone Taal, adapting its wording to that of a Dutch proverbial saying).

(2) “His seed” is interpreted as a reference to the life God gives. This results in such renderings as “the divine seed remains in him” (New English Bible), ‘the divine germ of life is (effective) in him,’ ‘he has and keeps God’s life in him like a grain of seed.’ With further adjustments this may lead to something like ‘he gives us new life.’ This is the interpretation the present authors would follow.

(3) “His seed” is interpreted as a metaphor for the word of God (compare Matt 13.3-9, 18-23 and parallels) or for the Spirit of God (compare John 3.5). This leads to renderings like ‘he has and keeps God’s word,’ ‘he has and keeps God’s Spirit.’

Divergent as they are, these renderings represent the same basic interpretation of “his seed.” It is also grammatically possible, however, (4) to take this phrase in the sense of “his (that is God’s) offspring.” This may either have a singular meaning and refer to Christ (Bible de Jérusalem), or a plural meaning, referring to the Christians (Moffatt). But in the opinion of the present authors, interpretation (4) is inadvisable.

And he cannot sin: when this is taken as the main clause of the second sentence (as advocated in the first note on this verse), it forms a climax; hence ‘what is more, he cannot sin,’ ‘it is even impossible that he would sin.’

What verses 4-9 say about sinning seems to contradict verses 1.5-10, which state that with Christians sinning is not only a possibility but even a fact. To avoid this apparent contradiction many translators take the present tense of “to sin” and “to commit sin” as expressing continuation; compare Good News Translation‘s “(not) continue to sin” (verses 6, 8-9). This is grammatically possible, but the above-mentioned interpretation is, in the present authors’ opinion, more in line with John’s thought. This thought is dualistic and distinguished sharply between good and evil, God and Satan. On the one hand no man may say that he is sinless, because the struggle between good and evil is only won with the help of God (1.5-10). On the other hand those who “remain in Christ,” who came to take away sin (3.5) and to destroy the works of Satan (3.8), may believe that they are on God’s side just as God is on their side. The dividing line between God’s realm and that of Satan is here considered to run between two groups of people, the children of God and the children of the devil (3.4-10). These two aspects of dualism occur side by side in many apocalyptic writings and in some documents found in Qumran.

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 this (compare “by this” in 2.3. Love, literally “the love,” is preferably interpreted as referring to God’s love for us and may have to be rendered ‘his/God’s love,’ ‘that he/God loves (us).’ With us is probably a Hebraism; the preposition has the same meaning as in the phrase “in him” in 2.5a, which see.

That: in the interpretation recommended in these notes, the that clause explains in this by mentioning something that is to be made to happen. Accordingly the connective that has the meaning “namely that,” “to wit that.” If, however, in this is taken as pointing back, the connective that can better be given consecutive meaning, as in “so that,” “with the result that.”

We may have confidence for the day of judgment is preferably taken as a reference to the future, “we will have confidence on….” For “to have confidence” see comments on 2.28.

The day of judgment, or ‘the day when all men (or we) are judged,’ ‘the moment when Christ judges mankind/us’: the phrase occurs as a technical term for an eschatological event (an event at the last days), both in the Greek version of the Old testament and in the New Testament (for example, Matt 10.15; 12.36; 2 Peter 2.9; 3.7). References to that event are found also in John 5.22, 27; 1 John 2.28-29, where it is Christ who judges in the name of God.

Judgment and “to judge” are in themselves neutral terms referring to making a decision in a lawsuit or in a similar affair. The concept is often to be rendered by an idiomatic or descriptive phrase such as ‘word straight to throw,’ ‘separate the good men from the wicked,’ ‘to measure something,’ and ‘to finish a case.’

In the present context, however, this basically neutral word has acquired a menacing sound because of man’s sinfulness; hence such renderings as ‘judge us for our sins (literally to receive our words about our sins),’ ‘inquiry about sin.’ Some versions use words referring to condemnation or punishment; this is to be rejected, since it anticipates an unfavorable decision for all, whereas the context presupposes a favorable decision for Christ’s followers.

Because as he is so are we in this world explains what is the foundation of their confidence. The clause is sometimes better rendered as a new sentence; for example, ‘This is so because as he is….’ For he (literally “that-one”) referring to Christ see comments on 2.6.

As he is so are we, or ‘we are just as Christ is,’ ‘our life is like Christ’s (life)’: the point of comparison may be Christ’s righteousness (see comments on 2.29 and compare 3.3) or his relationship with God. The latter fits the present context best; between God and Jesus there is perfect love and fellowship (compare John 14.10; 15.9-10; 17.11, 15-16, 21-23). Since this relationship is the model of the Christian’s relationship with God, and since Jesus can never be thought of as fearing his heavenly Father, his followers should not fear him either.

This point of comparison should preferably not be made explicit unless idiom requires doing so. In the latter case one may have to say something like ‘as he is living with God, so are we.’

In this world goes with so are we. The modification serves to express that man as he is in this world does not have the same direct and full relationship with God’s love as Christ has. As such it has a restrictive function. For 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 .

The clause the world passes away, and the lust of it expresses the second reason for the exhortation given in verse 15a. The verb has durative aspect, referring to a continuing process that will be, but is not yet, completed. It may also be rendered ‘is ending,’ ‘is coming to its end,’ ‘is on its way to perish,’ ‘will not exist much longer,’ ‘is fading/disappearing.’

The phrase the lust of it briefly sums up the three phrases of verse 16. The pronoun may refer to the goal, that is, to what men desire, which leads to a rendering like “everything in it that men desire” (Good News Translation). Or it may refer to the agent; hence, ‘what it (or the world) lusts after’; compare also ‘the desires it (or the world) arouses.’ The latter interpretation agrees with that of the comparable constructions in verse 16.

He who does the will of God abides for ever is in strong contrast to the preceding clause. Whereas the evil world is on the way to its end and has no permanence, those who do God’s will are without end and share in the permanent life of God.

“To do the will of” is a Hebraistic expression often found in the New Testament. It may be rendered here ‘to act according to God’s will,’ ‘to do what God demands,’ ‘to do what God tells one to do.’ Some idiomatic renderings are ‘to follow God’s heart,’ ‘to do the thing-loved of god.’ For comparable Hebraisms with “to do,” see the note on “do not live according to the truth” in 1.6.

In some receptor languages the will is identified with various parts of the body. This may result in rendering the will of God by such expressions as ‘the stomach of God,’ ‘what comes from God’s abdomen,’ or, laying a close connection between the voice and the will, ‘the throat/larynx of God.’

“To abide,” that is, to be-and-remain; in this context, ‘to stay,’ or ‘to live.’ Compare the note on “to abide in him” in 1 John 2.6. For for ever, see “eternal” in 1.2.

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 .

Whenever our hearts condemn us: the Greek hoti ean is probably to be read ho ti ean, meaning “in whatever matter our hearts condemn us,” “in matters where our heart condemns us” (compare New English Bible, footnote), or, somewhat freer, “whenever (or every time that) our heart condemns us.” The pronoun is in the accusative case, here having the force of a so-called accusative of reference. Accordingly, ho ti ean means “whereinsoever,” or “in whatever matter,” “in regard to anything in which” (Translators’ Translation). Such renderings are accurate, but sound rather clumsy. That may be the reason why Revised Standard Version, Moffatt, and others have shifted to “whenever,” or “even if” which is “a legitimate and necessary paraphrase for a construction which cannot be translated directly,” as Dodd has characterized it (page 88, nt. 1). Taken thus the sentence means to say that before God man’s heart may be at ease, although it condemns him for many things, or many times. This is contrary to man’s expectation. Man would expect that in God’s presence his sins will be even more condemnable and unforgivable. Why this is not so is explained in the next sentence.

Our hearts condemn us: the Greek has the first person plural pronoun only once. It may be taken with the verb, “the heart condemns us,” or with the noun, “our heart condemns.” But since in the former case “the heart” implies our hearts, and in the latter case us is clearly to be understood with the verb, both constructions result in the same meaning.

Condemn: the verb is basically a legal term which is often rendered by expressions like ‘to judge against,’ ‘to declare guilty,’ ‘to name for punishment,’ ‘to cause to find sin,’ ‘to make-sinner,’ ‘to put bad beside.’ Such renderings can often be used also in the metaphorical sense in which the verb is used here. Where this is impossible one may have to describe the contents of this clause otherwise; for example, ‘our inner being says we are bad.’ One version has ‘we are not one-hearted,’ using the negative opposite of its rendering of “we reassure our hearts.”

For God is greater than our hearts: the word for renders Greek hoti “that/because.” The clause gives the reason why “we” may reassure our hearts in God’s presence. It is because God is greater, in the sense of being more merciful, than our conscience dares to suppose. Thus interpreted the clause is meant as a consolation for those who are bowed down by the consciousness of their sins.

Another interpretation given of this clause is that it intends to say that God condemns our sins more severely than we do ourselves. This is less likely, since it is in line neither with the general trend of the Letter (compare for example, 1.8-10; 2.1-2, 12-14; 4.18) nor with the present verse.

It may be difficult to translate the clause as it stands, because it does not make clear which elements in God and in the hearts of men are compared. If one must be more specific, it is probably best to add a reference to knowledge, as in ‘God’s knowledge is greater than the knowledge of our hearts,’ ‘God knows more than our hearts (ever can) know.’ The next clause explains why this is the case; God knows everything.

Greater than: languages may lack comparative forms of the adjective (as Greek and English have) but express the concept of comparison otherwise. Some do so by using a verb meaning ‘to surpass’; for example, ‘God surpasses our hearts in greatness,’ ‘God’s greatness surpasses the greatness of our hearts.’ Others use two contrasting clauses such as ‘God is (really) great; our hearts are not great (or are small)’; or first mention the two things to be compared, then ascribe the quality to one of them; for example, ‘God and our hearts, God is (really/only) great’; or merely state the difference, as in, ‘God is great, not the same as our hearts.’ For these and some further details, compare A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Mark on 1.7.

In this interpretation of verses 19-20, several exegetical decisions are implied. Two other interpretations representing different decisions should be briefly mentioned here. They are possible also but, in the opinion of the present authors, less probable than the interpretation given above.

(1) “By this (pointing forward, to the second “that” clause) we shall know that we are of the truth and shall reassure our hearts before him, (verse 20a) that (hoti), (even) if (ean) our heart condemns us, (verse 20b) God is greater…” (compare New English Bible, Nieuwe Vertaling). Against this solution there are two objections: (a) The hoti in verse 20b is not explicitly rendered. This is done on the supposition that the same Greek conjunction occurs in verse 20a and is simply resumed in verse 20b. This, though not impossible, is not probable because it does not fit with John’s usage elsewhere in this Letter (compare 3.2; 5.14). (b) To take “by this” as pointing forward means that there is no expression that serves as transition from verse 18 to verse 19. This would result in a rather abrupt beginning of the new paragraph (verses 19-20), which is against the author’s usual style. (2) “By this (pointing back) we shall know that we are of the truth and shall reassure…. (Verse 20) For (hoti), if (ean) our heart condemns us, we know that (hoti) God is greater…” (compare Good News Translation). This rendering makes good sense, but only by adding a second “we know.” It is difficult to find an argument for this addition in the structure of the Greek sentence.

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, Nestle, and Good News Translation, this verse is taken as part of verse 6. In And the Spirit is the witness, the discourse turns now to the Spirit. This may seem a rather abrupt shift, but it was not so for John. In his school of thought there must have been a close connection between the Divine Sonship and the Spirit, as is shown, for example, by John 1.32-33; 3.34. For the Spirit (in the sense of God’s Spirit, or the Holy Spirit) see comments on 4.1.

The witness in the Greek is a participle of the present tense, literally “the witnessing/testifying one”; see comments on “to testify” in 1.2. The present tense expresses continuation. The reference is to the continuing witness, or testimony, of the Spirit in the congregation (compare also John 14.26 and 15.26). The verb is used here in the sense of “to affirm,” “to assert as valid,” “to say that something (here Jesus’ coming by water and blood) has really happened as stated.”

In order to stress that the Spirit’s testimony about the circumstances of Jesus’ coming can be trusted, the author adds because the Spirit is the truth, that is, because all which the Spirit does or says has the quality of divine truth. Sometimes the absoluteness of this assertion can be better brought out by a negative wording such as ‘because the Spirit cannot be a lie (or a liar).’ For truth see also comments on 1.8.

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 .

If we say: namely, to ourselves, or to each other.

If: In verses 6, 8, 10 the force of this conjrunction (in the Greek ean with the subjunctive of the aorist or the present tense) is “expectational” rather than conditional or hypothetical. It introduces something which under certain circumstances and from a given standpoint in the present is expected to occur. The rendering to be used should therefore have the meaning of ‘when,’ ‘whenever,’ ‘in the circumstances that.’

We: the opinion quoted is that of the false teachers (see Introduction pages 3 and following), who have found adherents among the persons whom the author is addressing. He might have said “if a man says,” “if you say,” or even “if some among you say,” but he prefers to use what one commentator has called “the preacher’s ‘we,’ ” the use of which is not only a matter of tact, particularly appropriate where error has to be corrected, but also belongs to the language of the Church as a fellowship. Accordingly we has inclusive force here. The same holds true of the other occurrences of the pronoun of the first person plural throughout 1.5–2.11.

We have fellowship with him, or, specifying the pronoun, ‘with God.’ For possible renderings of fellowship see comments on 1 John 1.3.

What the writer’s opponents are saying here is in stark contrast with what they are actually doing (see next clause). The words may again be rendered as indirect or as direct discourse. In the latter case a shift to a compound subject may be preferable; compare, for example, ‘God and I are of one mind,’ as one American Indian language has it.

While we walk in darkness is the second part of the sentence governed by the conjunction if, or ‘when.’ It is in strong contrast to the first part, we walk (referring to behavior, see below) contrasting to “we say,” and in darkness (which is emphatic by position) contrasting to “in fellowship with him.” Consequently the Greek connective kai and has adversative force, expressed by such renderings as ‘and yet,’ ‘but,’ ‘but at the same time,’ ‘while,’ ‘whereas.’ To bring out the emphatic position of “in darkness,” one may say ‘and yet it is in darkness that we walk,’ ‘but our life has only darkness.’

† Walk is a semitic use of the verb in the sense of ‘to pursue a way of life,’ ‘to live,’ ‘to conduct oneself.’ In some languages other verbs are employed with the same metaphorical value; for example, ‘to be sitting,’ ‘to move about’ (in a language where ‘to walk’ would suggest a contrast to running). In this sense the verb occurs also in 1.7 and 2.6, 12. And compare “to follow” in 2 John 4 and 3 John 3-4, where the Greek literally has “to walk in,” and 2 John 6, where it has “to walk according to.”

The word darkness refers here mainly to the ethical aspects of the term. This has been made explicit in some versions; compare, for example, ‘in darkness doing evil,’ ‘doing dark deeds.’

Having mentioned in verse 6a the opinion and behavior of his opponents, John proceeds in verse 6b to unmask them in the light of the true gospel of the eyewitnesses. He shows that their deeds are a negation of what they pretend to be and should be.

The structure of the sentence corresponds to that of verse 8bc and verse 10bc, each of which has also two parts, the first positive, the second negative. This stylistic feature is important as indication of the discourse structure of this section. It should preferably be preserved in translation.

We lie: in the Johannine writings the verb lie refers to all that is not of God, not only words but also attitudes or actions that are not in keeping with God’s will. Accordingly it may have to be rendered ‘we do and say what is false/untrue.’ In the present context, however, the reference is primarily to words, because the verb parallels “we say,” and because the wider meaning would result in a tautology, the next clause also containing a reference to attitude and action; hence ‘we tell lies,’ ‘we say what is false/untrue.’

For lie in this meaning some languages build an expression on a term that has the basic meaning of ‘crooked.’ Others use an idiomatic phrase such as ‘to be able to spread rumors,’ ‘to chop water’ (as a fitting symbol for the telling of fabricated stories), ‘to speak much,’ ‘to let the mouth fall,’ ‘to rack loose one’s mouth.’

(We) do not live according to the truth is in Greek literally “we do not do the truth.” The phrase is formed in imitation of a Hebrew idiom. Similar constructions of the verb do followed by an abstract noun occur rather often in this Letter; compare “to do the will of God” (2.17), “to do righteousness” (2.29; 3.7, 10), “to do sin” (3.4, 8-9), “to do lawlessness” (3.4), “to do what is pleasing before him” (3.22), “to do his commandments” (5.2). The idiom serves to express regular action in accordance with the quality inherent in the noun (compare Translators’ Translation on 3.4).

A literal rendering of this construction is in many places impossible, including the present verse; hence the rendering found here in Revised Standard Version, or such renderings as ‘to keep to the truth,’ ‘to do (or follow) what is true,’ ‘to obey the truth.’ If further adjustment is required, one may say something like ‘to act according to God’s will,’ ‘to do what is pleasing to God.’

† Truth means what is in keeping with fact, then, what conforms to a standard, namely, the standard of God’s will. In the latter meaning it is used here and in 2.21a; 2 John 4; 3 John 3-4, 12. Several languages have a specific term for truth. In others the rendering is more or less descriptive; for example, ‘what is known,’ ‘what can be known,’ ‘what is belief-worthy.’ In some the rendering has the basic meaning ‘straight.’

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 .

And now, little children: the author is going to enlarge on why and how his readers have to abide in Christ. To emphasize his exposition he uses the intimate form of address, little children; see comments on 1 John 2.1.

Now does not refer here to the present time but rather to the situation at a certain moment; hence, for example, ‘as things stand.’

The subordinate sentence beginning with so that consists of two verb clauses, each with a temporal qualification, when he appears, and at his coming, respectively. It may be necessary to repeat part of the main sentence before the second verb clause; for example, ‘and abide in him so that we may not shrink … at his coming.’ The connective used in the Greek may indicate purpose or expected result. Some versions have the former, but the latter interpretation seems more probable. If one has to shift to coordination, one may say ‘then we may…’ or ‘if you do so, we may….’

When he appears is often better transposed to a position after the clause it goes with. When serves to introduce an event that is expected to happen. It is used to show that Christ’s second coming is not viewed as a hypothetical possibility but as something that will certainly happen, only the time and circumstances being unknown (compare John 14.3). For “to appear” or ‘to reveal oneself,’ compare comments on “was made manifest” in 1.2.

The present clause (when he appears) and the last phrase of the verse (at his coming) have virtually the same meaning, since both refer to Christ’s second coming. Their renderings may partly, or even completely, resemble each other. Where this would sound too redundant, the two may better be rendered only once, as in ‘so that, not shrinking from him in shame, we may have confidence in him when he comes.’

We may have confidence: the syntactic structure may have to be changed; for example, ‘we may be confident’; and a phrase like ‘in his presence’ or ‘in him’ may have to be added.

† “To have confidence” is used in this Letter with reference to the future, namely, to Christ’s second coming (here) and to the day of judgment (4.17), or to the present, in which the Christian turns to God (3.21; 5.14).

The Greek noun referred originally to saying frankly all that needs to be said; then it came to mean “courage,” “boldness,” especially when speaking in the presence of persons of superior rank. It is used in these occurrences with two slightly different shades of meaning. Here and in 4.17 it refers to courage in the sense of not being affected by fear. In 3.21 and 5.14 it is used in a somewhat more active sense and means courage to do something, trusting that it will succeed.

Renderings used in the present verse are ‘to count on,’ ‘to await confidently,’ ‘to be at ease with,’ ‘to be without fear,’ ‘to have a heart made at rest (or a steady heart).’

We may … not shrink from him in shame renders a Greek verb in the passive voice, “to be made ashamed,” but which can also be interpreted as “to be ashamed.”

According to the latter interpretation the clause literally means “we may not be ashamed (away) from him.” This leads to a rendering like that of Revised Standard Version, or to “we may … need not hide in shame from him” (Good News Translation), ‘we will not be embarrassed to face him,’ ‘we will not feel shame in his presence.’ This meaning fits the preceding part of the clause, in as much as it also refers to the feelings we have.

It is also possible, however, to keep to the passive meaning. This leads to such renderings of the verb as ‘to be put to shame,’ ‘to suffer disgrace.’ Then from means “from the side of” and indicates where the disgrace comes from, or it introduces the one who makes others feel ashamed. With some further adjustments this may result in ‘we may not suffer disrepute before him,’ ‘he will not make us ashamed.’ This rendering agrees with the idea of judgment associated with Christ’s second coming and the basically juridical terms of verse 29. Therefore it seems to be the slightly better one.

Terms for shame are sometimes associated with sight; hence ‘one sees shame’ (in one African language), ‘one’s eyes are-ashamed’ (in one Indonesian language). Other languages have idiomatic expressions such as ‘the body is cold’ or ‘to have to sell face.’

At his coming, or ‘when he will come’: the Greek noun used (parousia) occurs only here in John’s writings. It means “presence,” then “arrival” (the first phase of presence, so to speak). It was especially used for the state visit of an emperor, king, or high official to the provinces. In the Christian church it became the technical term for Christ’s glorious second coming at the end of the present age.

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 .