See has here semantically the same function as the expression “behold,” which often occurs in other New Testament books (compare A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Luke on 1.20). The word serves to call the reader’s attention to what follows.

In some cases the receptor language verb ‘to see’ can be used idiomatically in this meaning; for example, ‘let’s see’ in one American Indian language. But in most receptor languages usage requires the imperative of another verb such as ‘consider,’ ‘think,’ ‘notice,’ ‘remember,’ ‘hear.’ Some translators do not render the word explicitly but stress the exclamatory form of the clause, as in “How great is the love that…!” (New English Bible).

What love the Father has given us, or ‘what great love the Father has given us,’ ‘how much/greatly the Father has loved us.’

What is in the Greek literally “what kind of.” Here it is expressing high degree; hence ‘how glorious/wonderful.’ For love see comments on 2.5, and for the Father see comments on 1.2.

Has given us: the verb is in the perfect tense, to show that God’s gracious gift determines the present situation. In some cases one can better say ‘has for us,’ ‘has shown us.’ The first person plural pronoun in verses 1-2, 11, 14, 16, 18-24 is inclusive; compare comments on “the preacher’s ‘we’ ” in 1.6.

That we should be called children of God gives the measure, and so explains the greatness of God’s love. The sentence formed by this and the preceding clause is sometimes better made into two sentences; for example, “See how much the Father has loved us! His love is so great that we are called God’s children” (Good News Translation).

Be called, or ‘be named,’ ‘have the name/title’: the implied agent of the passive form is “the Father.” Where one has to use active forms, one may say ‘that he should call us God’s children.’ If this would suggest that ‘the Father’ and ‘God’ are different persons, this may have to become ‘that he should call us his children’ or, making explicit the implied direct discourse, ‘that he should call us (or say of us), “My children,” ’ as is preferable in some languages.

† Children of God occurs also in 3.2, 10; 5.2; John 1.12; 11.52. In this Letter all occurrences follow a passage where the believers are said to be “born of God.” John uses the expression with reference to the Christian believers but never calls them “sons of God.” Paul’s usage differs from John’s in that he refers to the believers both as “children of God” and “sons of God” (Rom 8.16-17 and 19), and views them as God’s children by adoption (Rom 8.15).

The Greek term rendered “child” refers to parent-child relationship rather than to age (for further details compare A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Luke on 1.7). It is used here metaphorically to describe the intimate relationship which God has made possible between himself and the believers. The phrase is preferably to be rendered literally.

And so we are (in the Greek “and we are”), or “and so, in fact, we are” (Good News Translation), ‘and we really are God’s/his children,’ ‘and it is true’; or again, making explicit that the contrast is between “to be called” and “to be,” “not only called, we really are his children” (New English Bible, footnote, and compare Phillips).

The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him: the connecting thought is that, since children are like their father, their character can only be known from that of their father. To bring this out it may be preferable to render him by ‘the/our Father.’

The reason why … that, more literally “because-of this … that.” The construction with these two connectives allows two interpretations:

(1) Revised Standard Version and nearly all other versions investigated take “because-of this” as pointing forward and corresponding with that. The same construction is found in John 5.16, 18; 12.39. Other possible renderings here are ‘the reason why the world does not know us is this: it has not known him/the Father,’ ‘the world does not know us, since it has not known the Father,’ or changing the clause sequence, ‘the world does not know the Father, therefore they (it) cannot know us.’

(2) Some commentators and translators take ‘because-of this’ as pointing backward, namely, to the fact that “we” are God’s children. Then the that clause has the function of an additional explanation; hence, for example, ‘For this reason the world does not know us, for it has also not known him (or the Father)’ or ‘which explains why the world will no more recognize us than it recognized him’ (compare Phillips). In the opinion of the present authors, (2) is probably to be preferred, since it brings out better the connection between the two sentences of verse 1.

For the world see comments on 2.15, definition (5). Some renderings used here are “the godless world” (New English Bible), ‘those who only follow the world,’ ‘people who are concerned about just what is happening on this earth.’

The verb “to know” (for which see comments on 2.3) occurs first in the present tense, then in the aorist. The present has durative force here; the aorist indicates that the action is regarded as a completed whole, regardless of its duration; hence ‘up till now it has never known him.’ Another, but less probable, interpretation of the aorist is that it refers to a fact in the past, namely, the manifestation of God’s grace in Jesus (compare 1 John 1.10).

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 .