Tzotzil: “If we obey the commands of God, thus we know that we are his children.” (Source for this and two above: John Beekman in Notes on Translation 12, November 1964, p. 1ff.)
Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)
The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).
For this verse, translators typically select the inclusive form (including the addressee).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
God transcends gender, but most languages are limited to grammatical gender expressed in pronouns. In the case of English, this is traditionally confined to “he” (or in the forms “his,” “him,” and “himself”), “she” (and “her,” “hers,” and “herself”), and “it” (and “its” and “itself”).
Modern Mandarin Chinese, however, offers another possibility. Here, the third-person singular pronoun is always pronounced the same (tā), but it is written differently according to its gender (他 is “he,” 她 is “she,” and 它/牠 is “it” and their respective derivative forms). In each of these characters, the first (or upper) part defines the gender (man, woman, or thing/animal), while the second element gives the clue to its pronunciation.
In 1930, after a full century with dozens of Chinese translations, Bible translator Wang Yuande (王元德) coined a new “godly” pronoun: 祂. Chinese readers immediately knew how to pronounce it: tā. But they also recognized that the first part of that character, signifying something spiritual, clarified that each person of the Trinity has no gender aside from being God.
While the most important Protestant and Catholic Chinese versions respectively have opted not to use 祂, some Bible translations do and it is widely used in hymnals and other Christian materials. Among the translations that use 祂 to refer to “God” were early versions of Lü Zhenzhong’s (呂振中) version (New Testament: 1946, complete Bible: 1970). R.P. Kramers (in The Bible Translator 1956, p. 152ff. ) explains why later versions of Lü’s translation did not continue with this practice: “This new way of writing ‘He,’ however, has created a minor problem of its own: must this polite form be used whenever Jesus is referred to? Lü follows the rule that, wherever Jesus is referred to as a human being, the normal tā (他) is written; where he is referred to as divine, especially after the ascension, the reverential tā (祂) is used.”
In that system, one kind of pronoun is used for humans (male and female alike) and others for natural elements, non-liquid masses, and some spiritual entities (one other is used for large animals and another one for miscellaneous items). While in these languages the pronoun for spiritual entities used to be employed when referring to God, this has changed into the use of the human pronoun.
Lynell Zogbo (in The Bible Translator 1989, p. 401ff. ) explains: “From informal discussions with young Christians especially, it would appear that, at least for some people, the experience and/or concepts of Christianity are affecting the choice of pronoun for God. Some people explain that God is no longer ‘far away,’ but is somehow tangible and personal. For these speakers God has shifted over into the human category.”
In Kouya, God (the Father) and Jesus are referred to with the human pronoun ɔ, whereas the Holy Spirit is referred to with a non-human pronoun. (Northern Grebo and Western Krahn make a similar distinction.)
Eddie Arthur, a former Kouya Bible translation consultant, says the following: “We tried to insist that this shouldn’t happen, but the Kouya team members were insistent that the human pronoun for the Spirit would not work.”
In Burmese, the pronoun ko taw (ကိုယ်တော်) is used either as 2nd person (you) or 3rd person (he, him, his) reference. “This term clearly has its root in the religious language in Burmese. No ordinary persons are addressed or known by this pronoun because it is reserved for Buddhist monks, famous religious teachers, and in the case of Christianity, the Trinity.” (Source: Gam Seng Shae in The Bible Translator 2002, p. 202ff. )
In Thai, the pronoun phra`ong (พระองค์) is used, a gender-neutral pronoun which must refer to a previously introduced royal or divine being. Similarly, in Northern Khmer, which is spoken in Thailand, “an honorific divine pronoun” is used for the pronoun referring to the persons of the Trinity (source: David Thomas in The Bible Translator 1993, p. 445 ). In Urak Lawoi’, another language spoken in Thailand, the translation often uses tuhat (ตูฮัด) — “God” — ”as a divine pronoun where Thai has phra’ong even though it’s actually a noun.” (Source for Thai and Urak Lawoi’: Stephen Pattemore)
The English “Contemporary Torah” addresses the question of God and gendered pronouns by mostly avoiding pronouns in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (unless God is referred to as “lord,” “father,” “king,” or “warrior”). It does that by either using passive constructs (“He gave us” vs. “we were given”), by using the adjective “divine” or by using “God” rather than a pronoun.
Some Protestant and Orthodox English Bibles use a referential capitalized spelling when referring to the persons of the Trinity with “He,” “His,” “Him,” or “Himself.” This includes for instance the New American Standard Bible or The Orthodox New Testament, but most translations do not. Two other languages where this is also done (in most Bible translations) are Twents as well as the closely related Indonesian and Malay. In the latter two languages this follows the language usage according to the Qur’an, which in turn predicts that usage (see Soesilo in The Bible Translator 1991, p. 442ff. and The Bible Translator 1997, p. 433ff. ).
The proposition stated in verse 3 starts from the conviction that a man’s visible behavior and his invisible relation to God are so closely parallel that one can draw conclusions from the one concerning the other. Accordingly, from the fact that a man keeps God’s commandments, one can infer that he knows God; the former is the proof of the latter.
And does not have connective or transitional force here but serves to emphasize the subsequent by this. In several languages it is better left untranslated.
The prepositional phrase by this…, if … points forward to the dependent clause and is explained by it. The construction is chosen for reasons of emphasis. It serves to focus attention on the keeping of the commandments.
It is often preferable in translation to change the sentence structure. Using a more common sentence type one may say ‘if we keep God’s commands, then we can be sure that we know him’ (compare Good News Translation), or somewhat more expressively, “it is only when we obey God’s laws that we can be quite sure that we really know him” (Phillips). Other possibly useful restructurings are ‘if we keep God’s commands, we have the proof that we know him’ or “here is the test by which we can make sure that we know him: do we keep his commands?” (New English Bible).
Constructions with by this (or “in this,” in 4.9, 17, rendering the same Greek phrase) in the main clause pointing forward to an explanatory dependent clause occur a few times in the Gospel of John and are rather common in the present Letter. The dependent clause may be introduced by if, as is the case here and in John 13.35. This seems to indicate that the statement is to be viewed as a reference to assumed fact. A similar case, but using the conjunction “when/as often as” (Greek hotan) occurs in 5.2 (if there the alternative interpretation is followed). Elsewhere in this Letter the clause is introduced by “that” (3.16; 4.9-10, 13, 17), the statement being viewed as a reference to actual fact. In some cases no connective is used (4.2; also, probably, 3.10), but then again the clause seems to refer to fact.
The clause by this we may be sure serves to call attention to the subsequent statement of an important Christian truth, either in general or specifically applying to the situation of the readers of this Letter. The same or similar expressions, pointing to subsequent statements of the same kind, are found in 3.19, 24; 4.2, 13. In 2.5 and 5.2 it is not certain whether the expression points forward or backward; see the verses in question.
To be sure (or “to know”) refers to being aware of truth, or to discerning between what is true and what is not true (in one language expressed negatively, ‘not mistaking-the-one-for-the other’). Often “to be sure by” is better rendered ‘to be made sure by,’ ‘to be shown by.’ With a further shift this may lead here to a rendering like ‘this makes us sure,’ ‘this shows us,’ ‘this proves to us.’
We know him: in this and the next verse him may theoretically refer either to God or to Christ. The former is preferable because it is unlikely that this pronoun would have another reference that the possessive pronoun has in “his (that is, God’s) commandments”; see below. But one should bear in mind that for John there is no sharp distinction between God and Christ in contexts like this; to know or obey the one means to know or obey the other.
† The verb “to know” means in this passage “to have become (or to be) intimately acquainted with,” namely, with a person’s intentions and character. To bring this out some versions have here ‘to know how God is,’ ‘to know God, what he is like.’ The expression implies fellowship and communion with God. But for John, knowing God does not mean a mystic union with God, detaching oneself from earthly things, as it probably meant for his opponents. It has ethical implications of obedience towards God’s commandments (compare also 4.7-8). What he says here about the knowledge of God should be viewed in the light of such eschatological Old Testament passages as Jer 31.31-34. Other references to the Christians’ knowledge of God occur in 2.4, 13-14; 3.1, 6; 4.6-8; 5.20.
We keep his commandments, an expression that is characteristic of the Johannine writings. By keeping God’s commandments one shows one’s love for him (1 John 5.3), abides in him (3.24), and can be confident that he will hear one’s prayer (3.22). Conversely, one who does not keep God’s commandments is a stranger to the truth of God (2.4). The phrase is virtually synonymous with the expression “to keep his word” (compare verse 5).
† “To keep” may in this context be rendered by ‘to observe,’ ‘to obey,’ ‘to listen to.’ Some verbs used basically mean ‘to guard,’ ‘to complete/fulfill,’ ‘to hold-in-remembrance,’ ‘to confirm/agree,’ ‘to do-according-to.’ Other occurrences of the verb in this meaning are in 2.5; 3.22, 24; 5.3, and compare comments on “disobeys” in 2.4.
† With perhaps one exception (compare 3.23) the noun commandments is always used in John’s Letters to refer to what God orders, or tells, people to do; hence the possessive pronoun in the present verse should be interpreted as referring to God, not to Christ. The plural (2.3-4; 3.22, 24; 5.2-3; 2 John 6) is used to indicate that the reference is to deeds which give concrete form to the one, great commandment of love (in the singular, see 2.7-8; 3.23; 4.21; 2 John 5-6, and compare “word” in 1 John 2.5). The noun sometimes has been rendered by ‘rule,’ ‘what has been laid down,’ ‘what one should follow,’ ‘what one is-caused-to-follow.’
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 .
Read 2:3–6 in both Berean Standard Bible and Good News Translation. Compare the two versions.
Paragraph Theme: Here John begins to give the reason why we should not sin. He says that we should obey God’s commands as Jesus did. If we do that our behavior shows that we know God.
2:3a
to know Him:(Multiple Senses) The word know is here used in the sense of knowing someone personally as you would know your family and friends. This is different from knowing who someone is, or knowing about them.
Him:(Alternative Interpretations) There are two opinions about who the word Him refers to here:
(1) Good News Translation, The Jerusalem Bible, Phillips’ New Testament in Modern English make it clear that this refers to God.
(2) Some commentators think it refers to Jesus.
2:3b
if we keep His commandments:(Emotive Impact) This clause is emphasized in the Greek because John is telling his readers that this is what they should do. This emphasis can be shown in your translation by making if we keep His commandments the main clause of the sentence. For example:
“We should obey his commands because that is what will show us that we really know him.”
keep:(Tense) The tense of the verb here implies continual obedience.
Made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA) creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
All Scripture quotations in this publication, unless otherwise indicated, are from The Holy Bible, Berean Standard Bible. BSB is produced in cooperation with Bible Hub, Discovery Bible, OpenBible.com, and the Berean Bible Translation Committee.
Living Water is produced for the Bible translation movement in association with Lutheran Bible Translators. Lyrics derived from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®).
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.