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 .

Let us love one another: the Greek verb is in the present tense, which has perhaps been used to express continuation. The latter is brought out in a rendering like “let us go on loving one another” (Phillips).

In this and the following verses of the section, the pronoun us has inclusive force. For “to love one another” see comments on 3.11.

For love is of God: this clause serves to express that God is the origin or ultimate cause of all feelings and deeds of love; compare comments on “to be of” in 2.16. Some possible renderings are “love comes from God” (Good News Translation) or, where a verb form of ‘to love’ must be used, ‘if we love, it is God who causes us to do so’; compare also ‘it is because of God that we become like ones-who-love,’ as one American Indian language has it.

Such shifts may make unavoidable the mentioning of the goal. The goal to be added then should be ‘God and one another.’

And he who loves … is a new sentence, not dependent upon for in the preceding sentence. If a goal must be added, it should agree with that in the preceding clause.

For is born of God see comments on 2.29 and 3.9.

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 .

Any one born of God is in the Greek literally “any one who-has-been-begotten out-of God”; compare comments on 2.29. The expression refers to believers.

He who was born of God, literally “the one who-was-begotten out-of God,” a passive participle of the aorist. This tense shows that the reference is to a specific event in the past, namely, Jesus’ birth. In this sense the phrase is used only here in the New Testament. It is to be taken as referring to Christ and is virtually identical in meaning with “the Son of God.”

The use of such an uncommon expression can be explained as a matter of style, which means that the author intended to make a play on words. Or it may have been a matter of theology, which means that the author used the two almost identical phrases to emphasize that the Son identifies himself with his followers. However this may be, renderings similar to the above-given interpretation are found in nearly all versions investigated, and rightly so.

It may not be an easy task for the translator to bring out the difference of referential meaning while preserving the close similarity in form that characterizes the phrases “any one who-has-been-begotten out-of God” and “the one who-was-begotten out-of God.” To mark the difference he may have to use renderings that are more dissimilar than the Greek forms are; for example, ‘any child of God (or whoever is a child of God) – the Son of God,’ ‘(all) children of God – God’s own Son (or Child),’ ‘those who are begotten by God (or born of God) – God’s Son,’ ‘those who have become God’s offspring – God’s offspring.’

Keeps him, or ‘keeps him safe,’ ‘guards/protects him,’ ‘defends him.’

And introduces what the result of God’s protection will be.

The evil one does not touch him: the Greek verb has the sense of “to get hold of”; it is used here with an unfavorable connotation, “to harm.” For “the evil one” see comments on 2.13.

The clause may be rendered ‘the evil one does not even touch him,’ ‘the devil cannot harm him.’ The verb ‘to harm/injure’ is sometimes rendered analytically; for example, ‘to do bad things to,’ ‘to do something against.’

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 .

John now tries to explain the character of the commandments which one who follows Christ has to keep. As in verse 1 he shifts from exposition to direct address.

Beloved, used as an adjective in 3 John 1, functions in all other occurrences in John’s Letters as a noun in the vocative, in the plural (here and 3.2, 21; 4.1, 7, 11), or in the singular (3 John 2, 5, 11). Used thus it is one of the normal forms of direct address in letter writing, equivalent to the English expression ‘my friends,’ ‘(my) dear friends.’ Some corresponding forms in other languages literally mean ‘my people,’ ‘my (dear) children,’ ‘(my) brothers’ (used in the language concerned when one is addressing fellow Christians).

In renderings like those just mentioned, the relation with “love” may become less apparent or may disappear completely. Therefore several translators prefer a more literal rendering such as ‘beloved friends,’ ‘you whom I love,’ ‘my people that I love.’ This seems especially appropriate when beloved is used in passages where love is the topic, as is the case here (see the reference to brotherly love in verse 10) and in 3.2 (see the reference to God’s love in 3.1). But if such more literal renderings are unknown, or very unusual, as forms of addresses in the receptor language, their use is not to be recommended.

I am writing you no new commandment, or ‘the commandment I am writing you is not (a) new (one),’ ‘what I write you now is not a new commandment.’ For I am writing see comments on 2.1.

New commandment, or, where a verb phrase is required, ‘something (only) recently commanded,’ ‘something God has (only) recently told you to do.’ The adjective is used here in the sense of “not previously present/done,” then “unknown,” “strange.” In this context it has a slightly unfavorable connotation.

But an old commandment is elliptic. The ellipsis may have to be filled out, as in ‘no, the commandment I am writing you is (an) old (one).’ The connective but is rather emphatic; hence renderings like ‘on the contrary,’ ‘no, it is not.’ The adjective is the direct opposite of the preceding one, also in that it has a favorable connotation.

Which you had from the beginning, or, as a full sentence, ‘You had it from the beginning.’ Whereas “old” indicated the age and validity of the commandment in general, this relative clause defines how long John’s readers have already known it. The imperfect tense, indicating duration, serves to say that they were having it ever since the beginning.

In this context the verb “to have” has been rendered variously; for example, ‘to receive,’ ‘to know.’ A syntactic shift may lead to ‘which is with you (or is put before you) from the beginning.’

† From the beginning is used here in the sense of “from the beginning of your becoming Christians” and may be rendered ‘since you first became Christians,’ ‘from the day you began to believe,’ ‘since the gospel was first preached to you.’ The phrase occurs also in this sense in 2.24; 3.11 (but compare also the note there); 2 John 5-6. For renderings of the noun see comments on 1.1a.

The old commandment is the word which you have heard serves to specify the preceding clause. The commandment is the word of the gospel, viewed as an obligation. In some cases it is more idiomatic not to repeat “the old commandment” but to say something like ‘(and) it is…’; compare also ‘and with this I mean the message you have heard.’ To combine this and the preceding clause into one sentence, ‘it is the same commandment that you heard from the beginning,’ is not advisable. It neglects the repetitious style of the verse.

The word which you heard, or ‘what you heard us (exclusive) say (to you).’ For similar phrases with comparable meaning, see 2.18, 24; 3.11; 4.3; 2 John 6. These phrases always occur in connection with something that is common knowledge in the Christian congregation. Except in 4.3 the verb is in the aorist tense. This tense serves here to indicate that the action has been completed and is regarded as a whole, irrespective of its duration. What is in focus is the fact heard, rather than the act and means of hearing (as was the case in 1.1, 3, 5; see comments on 1.1). Therefore it may be better to say ‘the word you were told,’ ‘what you have learned.’

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 distinguishes two groups, the children of God (for which see comments on 1 John 3.1) and the children of the devil. Verse 9b has indicated the distinctive feature of the first group: a person who does not and cannot sin “is born of God.” The distinctive feature of the second group is given in verse 10b, again by saying what they do not.

By this it may be seen who are…, and who are …: the words by this can best be taken as pointing forward to verse 10b.

It may be seen, or ‘we/people can see clearly,’ ‘it is manifest.’

To emphasize the force of verse 10b, some versions have a slightly adjusted rendering of verse 10a such as “here is the clear difference between God’s children and the Devil’s children:…” (Good News Translation), or “the children of God and the children of the devil are distinguished in this way:….” (Translators’ Translation).

The children of the devil: the phrase parallels “the children of God.” Therefore the renderings of children of should be the same, unless idiom would not allow this, as may be the case in languages that use honorifics. It is worth noting here that John nowhere uses the expression “born of the devil,” or “seed of the devil.”

Is not of God, see comments on “is not of the Father” in 2.16.

Although the preceding clause would seem to have brought the argument to a close, John adds nor he who does not love his brother. This clause serves as a further description of the man who ‘does not do right’ and at the same time forms a transition to the next section.

Some versions transpose one of the clauses in order to get a more easily running sentence; for example, “anyone who does not do what is right, or does not love his brother, is not God’s child” (Good News Translation), ‘no one is (born) of God who does not act righteously, or does not love his brother.’ Others change the last clause into a complete sentence; for example, ‘Whoever does not do right is not of God. Whoever does not love his brother is not of God.’ Such solutions are acceptable, provided that the explanatory function of the second sentence remains clear.

Nor, or ‘and also not,’ ‘equally not’; or ‘thus too,’ ‘similarly.’ For “to love” and “love” (here and in verses 11, 14, 16-18) see comments on 2.10 and 5, and for brother (also in verses 12-17) see comments on 2.9.

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 .

There is no fear in love, or ‘fear does not go with love,’ ‘where there is love there is no fear.’ When verb forms are required, one may say ‘one who is loved (or one whom God loves) does not fear,’ ‘if we are loved (or if God loves us), we do not fear,’ taking God as the implied agent; or ‘one who loves does not fear,’ taking the believer who is inspired by God’s love as the implied agent (compare the remarks on “love for God” in 2.5). The former interpretation seems to be the more probable one.

Fear refers here to man’s fear of the judgment, or of God as judge. In some languages the concept is rendered by an idiomatic phrase; for example, ‘to shiver in the liver,’ ‘to feel him creep,’ ‘to have a little (or a light, or a trembling) heart.’

But here indicates climax rather than contrast; hence renderings like ‘yes,’ ‘indeed,’ ‘even,’ ‘rather.’ In some cases the required meaning can best be expressed by the omission of a connective between the two sentences.

Perfect love casts out fear: as in verse 17a this clause is preferably interpreted as referring to God’s love, which is truly and fully working in man’s heart. If love and fear are to be rendered by verb forms, it may be possible to say ‘one who is loved perfectly cannot fear,’ ‘the fact that God loves us perfectly makes it impossible for us to fear (or be afraid).’

For perfect compare the related verb in 2.5. Some renderings used here are ‘complete,’ “fully-developed” (Phillips), ‘real,’ ‘true,’ ‘having full measure,’ ‘with all the heart.’ “To cast out,” or ‘to chase away,’ ‘to get rid of’ expresses complete, radical removal.

For indicates expansion of the argument rather than the reason for what precedes. In some versions it is not expressly translated.

Fear has to do with punishment, literally “fear has/holds punishment”: the sentence may mean “fear includes punishment,” “fear in itself is punishment,” which implies a reference to punishment beginning in the present. Or it may be interpreted as “fear anticipates punishment,” namely, the punishment to be assigned at the day of judgment. The two do not exclude each other, since anticipating future punishment naturally affects the present feelings of the person concerned. Where verb forms are to be used, one may say something like ‘when a person fears, it is as though he is being punished already.’

Punishment, or “chastisement,” renders a Greek noun that is found in the New Testament only here and in Matt 25.46. The two passages speak of the Last Judgment. Compare also 2 Peter 2.9, where the related verb is used.

To render the concept “to punish,” one should employ a noun or verb referring to official, legal sanctions, and avoid terms implying personal retaliation or revenge. If the rendering to be used is more generic, for example, ‘to cause to suffer,’ ‘to make feel pain,’ one should make explicit the connection with the Last Judgment; compare New English Bible‘s “the pains of judgement.”

He who fears is not perfected in love: the clause need not be dependent upon “for.” It forms the counterpart of verse 17a and should be translated in accordance with it; for example, ‘if a person fears, God’s love does not come to perfection in him,’ or ‘when a person is afraid, it does not come to perfection in him that God loves him.’

The main theme of verses 19-21 is that love for God always means love for the brothers at the same time. In 5.1a the discussion of another theme seems to start; the verse is therefore often taken as the beginning of a new paragraph ( 5.1-4 or 5). But since in 5.1b and 2 the theme of 4.19-21 is continued again, the present authors prefer to take them with what precedes.

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

For children see comments on verse 13c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quoted with permission from Haas, C., de Jonge, M. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on The First Letter of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1972. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .