For By this we know (or “By this we are sure”), compare comments on 2.3. By this is probably best taken as pointing back towards the general rule given in verse 1b; then the phrase introduces the conclusion to be drawn from that rule.

The next two clauses may be rendered ‘we love the children of God whenever we love God and obey his commandments’ or, transposing the clauses, ‘whenever we love God and observe his commandments, we must also love his children.’ In the latter rendering the clause sequence of verse 2 parallels that of verse 1b, which may help the reader to make the right connection between the two.

We love: the Greek form is to be taken as an indicative, stating a fact with the force of an obligation; hence ‘we must love.’

For the children of God see comments on 3.1.

When: the Greek conjunction occurs here with the following subjunctive of the present tense. This construction is used when the event of the subordinate clause occurs at the same time as that of the main clause. It usually indicates repeated action; hence when means ‘whenever,’ ‘as often as,’ ‘every time that.’

Obey his commandments, is literally “do his commandments.” Other possible renderings are ‘act according to his commandments,’ ‘do as he commands,’ ‘do what he commands us (to do).’

The interpretation of verses 1-2 advocated here is the most probable one in the present authors’ view, but not the only possible one. There are two main alternatives: (1) Verse 1b may refer to the relationship existing between the believer and God the Father, or to that between the believer and other believers (not, however, to that between God the Father and Jesus the Son). (2) The words “by this” in verse 2 may be interpreted as pointing forward to the “when” clause.

An objection against interpretation (2) is that it differs from the usual order of thought in this Letter. It would imply that a man can know whether he loves his fellow men by asking himself whether he loves God and keeps His commandments. John’s usual argument is the other way round. In 3.14, 17-19, for example, he assumes that man’s immediate experience is his love for man, and that from this he derives the assurance of his relation to God.

Other commentators and translators do not think this objection is valid. According to them verse 2 has a different meaning, namely, that love for God is the proof of true love for the brother, which proof is to be found in the strict observance of the commandments; see verse 2a. This interpretation is represented, for example, by Good News Translation.

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 .

That which represents the neuter of the Greek relative pronoun. It is used here in spite of the fact that the Greek term it ultimately refers to, namely logos “word,” is masculine in gender. This grammatical incongruity serves a purpose. It suggests (but not more than “suggests”) that the situation and qualities of the word cannot clearly and unequivocally be described in human language. In languages with quite different grammatical categories, however, it usually is impossible to imitate this stylistic trait; attempts to express it in other ways tend to result in overtranslation or in change of meaning.

From the beginning. The use of from serves to indicate that the Word not only appeared at the moment mentioned (as expressed by “In the beginning,” Gen 1.1; John 1.1), but that it has existed and been active ever since. Thus the period concerned reaches from the earliest point of time to the present; hence, ‘from of old’ in one version. Compare also such a rendering of the clause as “which has always existed” (Phillips).

† The beginning: here (and in 2.13-14; 3.8; compare also on 3.11) the noun refers to the beginning of creation. At other occurrences the reference is to the beginning of the preaching of the gospel; compare 2.7. If the noun has to be rendered by a verb, one may say, ‘ever since the world began (or was created, or existed).’

The noun beginning is expressed in some languages by terms, or derivations of terms, which literally mean ‘origin,’ ‘root,’ ‘trunk,’ ‘place-where-the-canoe-point-rolls-first,’ etc.

Which we have heard, or, changing to a coordinate sentence, ‘we have heard it (that is, the Word),’ or, where one has to indicate the person who has been speaking, ‘we have heard him (speak),’ ‘we have heard his words.’ This and the two following clauses serve to express that the Word has been perceived through the use of these three senses: hearing, sight, and touch.

Which we have seen with our eyes: in some languages it would be redundant to say with our eyes in combination with the verb ‘to see.’ In such cases the emphatic function of this prepositional phrase must be expressed by other means; for example, ‘we ourselves actually have seen it/him,’ ‘our (own) eyes were fixed upon him.’

These two relative clauses together form the first part of verse 1b. The verbs are both in the perfect tense, showing that the reference is to an event in the past that is still effective in the present. The clause about seeing the word has a more elaborate form than the clause about hearing it.

The second part of verse 1b (which we have looked upon and touched with our hands) resembles the first in rhythm and structure. In this part also the second statement is more elaborate than the first, and the two verbs are in the same tense, which is the aorist, however. Since the meaning of this tense seems not basically to differ here from that of the preceding perfects, it was probably chosen for reasons of stylistic variation only.

Which we have looked upon. The function of this clause is more or less a transitional one. It leads to the fourth and strongest statement of verse 1b, which forms its climax: the object is not only heard and seen, but even touched. The Greek verb used here refers in some contexts to attentive seeing and observing, or has a somewhat solemn sound, but in the Johannine writings it is virtually interchangeable with the more common Greek verb for “to see” used in the directly preceding clause. Accordingly this variation seems again to be for stylistic rather than semantic reasons.

And touched with our hands, or (closer to the Greek) ‘and (which) our hands touched,’ which is a construction that is more natural in some receptor languages. The term hands is often used to refer to, or to emphasize, agency. Therefore ‘and which we ourselves (actually) have touched’ is a perfectly legitimate rendering of the clause. Such a rendering will be especially useful where the combination ‘to touch with the hands’ would be unduly redundant.

The verb have … touched is used to stress the reality and bodily existence of that which was from the beginning and was perceived by the eyewitnesses. In Luke 24.39 the same Greek verb is used to indicate that Jesus has risen, not as a ghost or spirit, but as a corporeal being. Other possible renderings of the verb are ‘to handle,’ ‘to feel all over,’ ‘to move one’s hand over (the body of).’ In some cultures touching has undesirable connotations. Therefore one Mayan language uses ‘we were close to him.’

The construction the word of life expresses that the first noun is equated with, or qualified by, the second; hence ‘the Word which is life,’ or ‘the Word which gives life,’ ‘the Word which causes people to live,’ ‘the Word, the life,’ are possible renderings of this phrase.

In this verse the word should preferably be interpreted along the lines of the Prologue to the Gospel of John. Taken thus it refers to the divine Word by which the world has been created and exists, which reveals God’s being and expresses his will, wisdom, and power, and has become man in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1.14). Accordingly it functions here as a descriptive name or a title and may be marked as such; compare several versions that use a capital (King James Version [King James Version], Good News Translation, Nieuwe Vertaling, Bible de Jérusalem, and others). Except for such a marker the rendering of word to be used here should not basically differ from the one used in “his word” and “the word of God” (1.10; 2.5,14).

† For word (also in 2.7; 3.18; 3 John 10) the receptor language may have a term that has a wider meaning than that of “a single word” and covers several related concepts, for example, ‘word/speech/message,’ ‘word/matter/idea,’ ‘speech/voice/sound/word/command,’ ‘phrase/sentence/statement,’ ‘utterance/saying/narrative/message,’ ‘word/speech/thought/action.’ There is no objection against the use of such a term as long as it includes a reference to meaningful expression.

In some receptor languages word must be modified to indicate possession, or its normal rendering is not a noun but a verbal expression. This may lead to the use of some expression that uses several words, such as ‘he who is (called) God’s word (or God’s voice),’ ‘he in whom God speaks.’ For the clash that may arise between grammatical categories for the inanimate and the animate, or personal, see above, the third general remark on verses 1-4.

† Life is in Greek zōē, occurring also in 1.2; 2.25; 3.14-15; 5.11 and following, 16, 20. It refers to vitality, the (not essentially personal) principle and force of life, animating man’s motion and action, his intellect and emotions. The Greek term is distinguished from the more personal psuchē (3.16; 3 John 2), that is, “(breath of) life,” “soul,” “principle of life,” referring to natural life, then to the seat and center of man’s inner life with its many and varied aspects, its desires, feelings, and emotions; and from bios (2.16f), that is, life on earth in its functions and duration, then also basic essentials of life, “livelihood,” “property.”

In the Johannine writings zōē is often used in a sense that is further developed, namely, real life, life seen as something which man does not possess by nature, but which God gives to those who believe in Christ. For John it is not an abstraction but a reality, as real as Christ himself, with whom it is equated (John 11.25; 14.6; compare also Paul’s “Christ who is our life” in Col 3.4). A fuller expression of the same concept is “eternal life,” see comments on 1 John 1.2b.

Several receptor languages employ two or three distinctive terms not unlike the Greek ones. Thus one Aztec language distinguishes between a word for ‘heart life’ (suitable here, since it is thought of as animating every part of man’s intellectual and emotional existence) and a term for physical existence, the type of life every animal has. In some other languages the rendering used literally means ‘strong breast’ or ‘undyingness,’ or it is associated with ‘having breath’ or ‘growth.’ The fact that this kind of life is not man’s by nature may make necessary the use of a qualifying term, as in ‘new life,’ or ‘new self/personality/innermost-being.’

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

This verse is a further explanation of what John has stated in verse 22.

No one who denies the Son has the Father can be rendered as ‘everyone who denies the Son cannot have the Father,’ ‘if a person denies the Father’s Son, he also cannot have the Father,’ ‘a person cannot have the Father, if he denies his Son.’

“To have the Father” expresses a close and intimate communion with the Father, not the possessing of the Father, of course. Some renderings are ‘to be with the Father,’ ‘to have received the Father,’ ‘to be a child of the Father.’ It is probably an allusion to a favorite expression among the false teachers, who claimed a communion with the Father not polluted by this material world. John counters this by stating who cannot “have the Father” and who can. Only by accepting Jesus Christ, who as man has been part of this material world, can one “have the Father,” that is, have fellowship with God, the Father of Jesus Christ.

He who confesses the Son has the Father also: for the sake of emphasis, again, the thought first expressed in a negative sentence is now repeated in a positive one; see comments on verse 21. The two are parallel but in reverse order. Therefore adjustments or restructurings in the one should have their counterpart in the other.

† “To confess” occurred with “our sins” as goal in 1.9. Here and in 4.3 the goal is personal (“the Son” and “Jesus Christ”), and the verb is used in the sense of declaring openly one’s belief in Christ. In 4.2 and 15 the verb is followed by a clause mentioning a fact about Christ, and has the meaning of declaring openly that one believes that fact. The same Greek verb occurs with the same meaning in 2 John 7, where Revised Standard Version has “acknowledge.”

In the present verse “to confess” is the direct opposite of the preceding “to deny,” and accordingly has to be rendered “to accept” (Good News Translation), ‘not to reject/disown,’ ‘to say “yes” about,’ ‘to say, “I love…,” ’ ‘to declare openly that one believes in.’ In the last mentioned rendering ‘to believe’ (for which see comments on 3.23) should be taken in the sense of believing as true the facts about the Son rather than in the sense of trusting in the Son.

Some versions give different renderings of the two occurrences of “to have the Father”; for example, ‘rejects the Father’ in the preceding, negative clause, and ‘has the Father’ in the present, positive one. In itself ‘to reject’ is an acceptable rendering of “not to have” in this context. Yet such differentiation spoils the reverse parallelism and weakens the allusive character of the expression “to have the Father.” It is therefore unadvisable unless clearly required by receptor language idiom.

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 structure of the first sentence of this verse resembles that of 3.10. By this (see 2.3) points to the pair of opposite clauses in verses 2b and 3a. Some other renderings are ‘you can know the Spirit of God in this way:…’ (compare Goodspeed), ‘the test by which you can know the Spirit of God is this:….’

You know the Spirit of God is often better slightly expanded: ‘you can know/recognize the presence of the Spirit of God,’ ‘you can tell whether a person has (or is inspired by) the Spirit of God’; compare also Good News Translation‘s “you will be able to know whether it is God’s Spirit” (in which “it” refers to “the spirit they have” in verse 1).

The Greek verb form can also have the meaning of an imperative (compare Bible de Jérusalem), but the interpretation as an indicative is preferable for two reasons: (1) The verses state the standard for the test ordered in verse 1; such a statement is normally in the indicative. (2) In none of the other occurrences of this sentence structure is the introductory by this followed by a verb in the imperative.

Every spirit which confesses … is of God, or ‘every one who confesses … is inspired by God (or has the Spirit who comes from God)’ (compare Good News Translation), ‘if a person confesses…, the Spirit of God is in him.’

Confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh: the Greek uses the participle of the perfect tense of “to come”; a more literal rendering would be “confesses Jesus Christ (as) having come in the flesh.” The use of the participle characterizes the utterance as a fixed formula. The perfect tense is to show that Christ’s coming in the past still influences the present. For a similar formula, but in another tense, and in the negative, see 2 John 7. For “to confess” see comments on 2.23.

Some versions take Christ with the participle; hence ‘confesses Jesus (as) Christ having come…,’ or, more freely, ‘confesses that Jesus is the Christ who has come…’ (compare Translators’ Translation and note). This rendering could be meant as a further clarification of 2.22. It is semantically attractive, but grammatically speaking the construction is less probable, since in the Greek it would normally require an article with the participial phrase.

In the flesh, or ‘as a human being’ (compare Good News Translation), “in human form” (Goodspeed); or, where ‘body’ has the connotation of what is only human, ‘taking his body here in the world,’ ‘with his very body.’ For the noun see comments on 2.16, meaning (4).

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 .

I write this to you is a phrase that is repeatedly used in this Letter to introduce a warning (as in 2.1 and 26) or to emphasize an assurance (as in 2.12-14, 21). The latter is the case also in the present verse. For “to write” see comments on 1.4; for the use of the aorist tense, see the note on “I am writing” in 2.12.

The demonstrative pronoun this points back. Its reference is not to a specific passage but to all which precedes in this Letter, in which the readers have been assured again and again that their salvation is certain; see for example 1.3; 2.12-14; 3.1, 14; 4.13. To bring this out one may say ‘all this I write to you.’

The order in which Revised Standard Version gives the next two clauses is the reversal of what the Greek has. The following discussion will keep to the Greek clause order.

That you may know that you have eternal life: the clause follows in the Greek directly after “I write this to you.” It says what is the aim of the assurances that have been given in this Letter. Accordingly the first that has the force of “in order that.” You have is in the present tense, indicating that to have eternal life is not a future but a present reality.

“To know” is often rendered ‘to be sure,’ ‘to be assured,’ ‘to have no doubt.’ Similarly in verse 15, where the verb occurs twice in this sense.

You have eternal life: in the Greek the adjective is separated from its noun by the verb and so is emphatic by position. To bring this out one may say ‘you have life that is eternal,’ ‘you have life—yes, eternal life.’ If one has to restructure the clause, one may say ‘eternal/true life is dwelling in you,’ ‘you are living for the age to come.’ Compare also comments on 3.15, and on “to have life” in 5.12.

You who believe in the name of the Son of God: this clause is an appositional clause going with “to you” in the main clause. In the Greek the two are separated by the “that” clause. This syntactically unusual position serves to lend the clause special emphasis. To bring this out one may use a rendering of the sentence such as “I write you this so that you may know that you have eternal life—you that believe in…” (Good News Translation). In some cases the clause requires a rendering by a full sentence such as ‘I write this to you that you may know … eternal life. I am addressing you (or I mean you) who believe in…’; in other cases it may have to be transposed, ‘you who believe in…, I write these things to you that you may know … eternal life.’

For believe in the name of, see comments on 3.23; the verb form used here is the present participle, the present tense expressing continuation. For Son of God see comments on 3.8.

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 .

And he: the Greek pronoun he is emphatic. It has the force of “someone with the qualities just indicated.” To bring this out one may say ‘and this one’ or ‘now it is he who.’

He is the expiation for our sins: the Greek verbal noun originally served to express the act of expiating, but in the present verse it refers either (1) to the person who expiates, or (2) to the means used in expiating. The Greek translation of the Old Testament, taking it in the latter sense, uses it for “sin offering,” or “atoning sacrifice” (Ezek 44.27, compare Num 5.8). Interpretation (1) and (2) seem to be equally acceptable. For our sins, or ‘the sins we do,’ see comments on 1.7.

Several restructurings of the clause are possible. In case (1) one may shift to ‘he (or Jesus Christ) expiates our sins.’ In case (2) the best form of the clause may be ‘he (or, Jesus Christ) is the means by which our sins are expiated,’ or, with a further shift, ‘through him God expiates our sins,’ or perhaps ‘Jesus Christ is the sin offering that causes our sins to be expiated.’

† The Greek term rendered expiation (here and 4.10) is derived from a verb which outside the New Testament generally means “to pacify,” namely, an offended deity. Another meaning of the verb, rarer in non-Christian writers, is to perform an act by which ritual or moral defilement is removed. In the Greek and Hellenistic world it was believed that the prescribed rituals (which might or might not include the slaughter of animals) could serve, so to speak, as a powerful disinfectant. Every one who had performed this ritual could be confident that the taint, the defilement, was removed.

In the Greek Old Testament the verb in question is the most general term for such rituals. Almost invariably it has the sense “to cleanse from defilement.” Where priests or other men are the ones who expiate, it refers to sacrifices or purifying rites. But in Hebrew thought it is also possible (as it never is among the Greeks) that God performs the action.

Accordingly the meaning of the Greek verb comes close to that of “to cleanse” (see 1.7 and comments) and “to forgive” (see 1.9 and comments). An interpretation along these lines leads to renderings like “Christ himself is the means by which our sins are forgiven” (Good News Translation), ‘who makes good all our sins,’ ‘it is he who is what-frees-from our sins’ (making use of a term that in the indigenous religion refers to the exorcising of magical influences), ‘he is the means of the disappearance of our sins,’ ‘he himself takes away sin,’ ‘he covers up our sins.’ The last mentioned rendering is fully acceptable in some languages (among them probably also Hebrew, for “to cover” is one of the meanings the corresponding Hebrew verb can have), but in other languages and cultures it would suggest hiding (so that God cannot see it), and therefore cannot be used.

And not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world, literally ‘not for ours only, but also for the whole world,’ a construction made possible by the fact that the Greek verb in question can take as goal either ‘the sin (of a man)’ or ‘the man (who sins).’ The two phrases may better be rendered as one or two full sentences; for example, ‘He covers up our sins, and also the sins of the whole world,’ ‘And not only our sins he makes up for. He makes up also for the sins of the whole world.’

The phrase the whole world may be rendered ‘all those who live on this earth,’ ‘men from everywhere’ (in a language that only possesses terms for a small geographic area), or simply “all men” (Good News Translation). For the noun see also comments on 2.15, meaning (3).

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 connection between verse 5 and the preceding verse is this: if you commit sins, you set at naught Christ’s mission, for, as you know, he came to take away sins. Thus there is a contrast between the two sentences which may have to be marked explicitly, for example, by introducing verse 5 as follows: ‘You know, however, that he appeared…,’ or ‘But he appeared, as you know….’

He appeared: the pronoun, literally ‘that one,’ refers to Christ, see comments on 2.6. The tense used is the aorist, which shows that the reference is to Jesus’ appearance in history.

To take away sins, or “in order that he may take away sins” (compare John 1.29); the two occurrences should be rendered alike.

The plural of the noun shows that the reference is to specific sinful deeds; compare 1.9. To bring this out may require ‘to take away our sins’ (also found in a variant reading of the Greek text), ‘to remove our sins from us,’ ‘to free us from our sins.’ Where the noun must be rendered by a verbal form, one may say ‘to make them people who sin no more.’

And in him there is no sin is not dependent on you know. It is, therefore, to be rendered as a new, independent sentence. The present tense shows that the reference is both to Christ’s life among men in the past, and to his present life with the Father. For the force which in has here compare “in him there is no darkness” in 1.5.

The noun sin, now in the singular and without article, may refer to a sinful condition or character; hence renderings of the clause like, ‘he is absolutely without sin,’ ‘he does not and cannot sin.’

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

This verse is identical with 3.24b, with the exception of three minor points: (1) The process “to abide in” is described here as reciprocal (we abide in him and he in us) but in 3.24b as one-directional. The latter may nevertheless imply reciprocity, since it continues the reciprocal expression found in 3.24a. (2) The verb “to give” is in the perfect tense rather than in the aorist in the other verse. (3) The phrase because he has given us of his own Spirit corresponds with “by the Spirit which he has given us.” These differences seem to be a matter of form rather than of contents.

In the next verses the author comes to speak of another theme, namely, the right confession based on the true Christian witness. This witness is to be found in the Church, which hands on to others the message of the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life (see Introduction pages 6 and following).

The reason for this shift to the theme of witness is that the false teachers claim to have a testimony inspired by God’s Spirit. Therefore one must test each man’s testimony to see whether it is truly Christian (see verse 15, and compare verses 1-6). This is the case when it says that Jesus is the Christ or, in other words, that the one who has become man to save the world is God’s Son.

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 .