The interpretation of verses 15-17 hinges on the right understanding of the term the world and its connotations, for which see below.

Do not love the world: the verb is used here with a nonpersonal goal in the sense of “to strive after,” “to try to get” (as in “love the reserved seats in the synagogues,” Luke 11.43, Good News Bible); then “to prefer,” in the sense of “to like better than the things of God” (as in “men love the darkness rather than the light,” John 3.19, Good News Bible). Therefore one often must use another rendering than the one in verse 10; for example, ‘to let the heart be taken up with,’ ‘to desire (literally to have a bursting heart)’; or ‘to covet,’ literally ‘to become small of heart’ (whereas in verse 10 the language concerned has ‘he who feels hurt in his heart for his brother’).

† The term the world occurs frequently in the New Testament in general and in the Johannine writings in particular (103 occurrences out of a total of 183). It is used with various shades of meaning, five of which are the following:

(1) In what may be called its central meaning, the world refers to the (orderly) universe, the system of the physical creation; see, for example, Acts 17.24. (2) Taken in a more restricted, locative sense, the word means “the earth” as the habitation of mankind and the place of man’s organization of creation. It is the place where God is at work, sending his Son (1 John 4.9), and where men should serve God (4.17), but where evil forces may be at work too (4.1, 3; 2 John 7). (3) In several cases the world is used with a personal reference, meaning mankind as a whole, as in 1 John 2.2; 4.14; compare also John 3.16. (4) Used metaphorically the word refers to man’s organization of creation, or to his way of life with its possessions, joys, desires, cares, and sufferings (3.17).

In these four occurrences the term can be said to be essentially neutral in connotation. But the world can occur also (5) with a negative connotation, standing for all who are enemies, or for all that is an enemy, of God and the believers (see 2.15-17; 3.1, 13; 4.4-5, 19). Taken thus it refers to the world and the persons in it as an evil system, as a way of life that is in the power of the evil one and therefore is friendly to the false teachers. Then the opposition between world and “God” is parallel to that between “darkness” and “light”; compare 1.5.

In practical usage the various meanings mentioned are, of course, not so neatly divided as is done here, for there is a certain inner unity among them. Where one of them is predominant, one or more of the other meanings may also be present, though only on a secondary level. Translators therefore have here an especially delicate task. On the one hand they must find a rendering that brings out, or at least does not obscure, the specific shade of meaning relevant in the context. On the other hand they should try to preserve the inner unity of the term, or at least not to differentiate more than is required by idiom.

In order to reach this end, it is sometimes possible to use one term, qualifying it according to context. One may have, for example, ‘the earth’ for meaning (2) and, metaphorically used, for meaning (4); ‘those who are in the earth’ for (3); ‘the evil earth,’ or ‘the evil persons in (or things in, or way of life on) the earth’ for (5). Another way to the same end, less explicit than the one just mentioned, is to say for meaning (5) ‘this (here) earth’ (tacitly implying a contrast to another and better one). In some languages it is the derived adjective that has the unfavorable connotation rather than the noun; for example, English “worldly”; the same is true of some Indonesian languages.

To preserve the inner unity of the term in this way is not always possible, however. In some receptor languages, for instance, one simply must use distinctive terms for meaning (2) and meaning (4). In another there exists no word for “world,” “earth,” or even for a wide stretch of land. Therefore world in the sense of “mankind,” meaning (3), had to be rendered as ‘people from everywhere.’

The things in the world, can be rendered as ‘whatever is in the world,’ ‘whatever the world offers,’ ‘things of men’ (a common expression in the language concerned for ‘pagan way of life’); or, making explicit the negative connotation, ‘doing like bad people do.’

The second sentence of the verse states that love for the world and love for God cannot go together (compare “a man cannot love the Father and love the world at the same time,” Phillips). Thus it expresses the first reason for the exhortation not to love the world, the second reason for which is given in verse 17. Compare for a similar statement James 4.4, “to be the world’s friend means to be God’s enemy” (Good News Bible).

Love for the Father is not in him: for the construction love for the Father, more literally “love of the Father,” see “love for God” in 2.5. Taken thus the clause is another way of saying ‘he cannot love the Father.’

The other interpretation of the construction, in which the Father is the agent of the process, is not to be wholly excluded, however. It is followed, for example, in “the Father’s love is not in him” (Translators’ Translation, footnote) and “he is a stranger to the Father’s love” (New English Bible), or, shifting to a verb, ‘he cannot love as the Father loves.’ Some translators feel that both meanings of the construction are probably intended. Therefore they prefer a reciprocal interpretation; for example, ‘there can be no love between (God) the Father and men’ (compare Bijbel in Gewone Taal). In support of this interpretation one may quote “we love because God first loved us” (4.19, Good News Bible).

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 .