¹ tn The phrase “This is what we proclaim to you” is not in the Greek text, but has been added to clarify the English. The main verb which governs all of these relative clauses is ajpaggevllomen (apangellomen) in v. 3. This is important for the proper understanding of the relative clauses in v. 1, because the main verb ajpaggevllomen in v. 3 makes it clear that all of the relative clauses in vv. 1 and 3 are the objects of the author’s proclamation to the readers rather than the subjects. To indicate this the phrase “This is what we proclaim to you” has been added at the beginning of v. 1.
²tn Grk “That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard…”
³tn Or “proclaim.”
⁴tn In the Greek text the prologue to 1 John (vv. 1-4) make up a single sentence. This is awkward in Greek, and a literal translation produces almost impossible English. For this reason the present translation places a period at the end of v. 2 and another at the end of v. 3. The material in parentheses in v. 1 begins the first of three parenthetical interruptions in the grammatical sequence of the prologue (the second is the entirety of v. 2 and the third is the latter part of v. 3). This is because of the awkwardness of connecting the prepositional phrase with what precedes, an awkwardness not immediately obvious in most English translations: “what we beheld and our hands handled concerning the word of life…” As J. Bonsirven (Épîtres de Saint Jean [Paris: Beauchesne, 1954], 67) noted, while one may hear about the word of life, it is more difficult to see about the word of life, and impossible to feel with one’s hands about the word of life! Rather than being the object of any of the verbs in v. 1, the prepositional phrase in 1:1f is more likely a parenthetical clarification intended to specify the subject of the eyewitness testimony which the verbs in v. 1 describe. A parallel for such parenthetical explanation may be found in John 1:12 (toi'" pisteuvousin eij" toV o[noma aujtou', toi" pisteuousin ei" to onoma autou).
⁵tn Or “proclaim.”
⁶tn The i{na (ina) here indicates purpose.
⁷tn “Thus” is supplied to indicated the resultative nature of the Greek conjunction kaiv (kai) at the beginning of v. 4.
⁸tn The i{na (ina) here indicates purpose.
⁹tc A number of important manuscripts (A C K P 33 81 323 614 630 945 1505 1739 2495 pm) read uJmw'n (Jumwn, “your”) rather than hJmw'n (Jhmwn, “our”), which is found in Í B L Y 049 69 1241 pm. Although the majority of Byzantine minuscules are split between the two readings, the Textus Receptus reads uJmw'n. It is possible that uJmw'n represents a scribal assimilation to John 16:24. As far as the immediate context is concerned, either reading could possibly be original, since the recipients have already been mentioned in 1:2 (uJmi'n, Jumin) and 1:3 (uJmi'n), while it might seem more natural for the author to be concerned about the fulfillment of his own joy than his readers’ (cf. 2 John 4, 12; 3 John 3).
¹⁰tn Grk “be fulfilled.”
sn This is what we proclaim to you…so that our joy may be complete. The prologue to 1 John (1:1-4) has many similarities to the prologue to the Gospel of John (1:1-18). Like the prologue to the Fourth Gospel, the prologue to 1 John introduces the reader to important themes which will be more full developed later in the body of the work. In the case of 1 John, three of these are: (1) the importance of eyewitness testimony to who Jesus is (cf. 4:14, 5:6-12), (2) the importance of the earthly ministry of Jesus as a part of God’s revelation of himself in Jesus Christ (cf. 4:2, 5:6), and (3) the eternal life available to believers in Jesus Christ (5:11-12, 5:20). Like the rest of the letter, the prologue to 1 John does not contain any of the usual features associated with a letter in NT times, such as an opening formula, the name of the author or sender, the name(s) of the addressee(s), a formal greeting, or a health wish or expression of remembrance. The author of 1 John begins the prologue with an emphasis on the eyewitness nature of his testimony. He then transitions to a focus on the readers of the letter by emphasizing the proclamation of this eyewitness (apostolic) testimony to them. The purpose of this proclamation is so that the readers might share in fellowship with the author, a true fellowship which is with the Father and the Son as well. To guarantee this maintenance of fellowship the author is writing the letter itself (line 4a). Thus, in spite of the convoluted structure of the prologue in which the author’s thought turns back on itself several times, there is a discernible progression in his thought which ultimately expresses itself in the reason for the writing of the letter (later expressed again in slightly different form in the purpose statement of 5:13).
¹tn The kaiv (kai) at the beginning of 1:5 takes on a resumptive force, indicated by the phrase “heard from him and announce to you,” which echoes similar phrases in 1:2 and 1:3.
²tn The word “gospel” is not in the Greek text but is supplied to clarify the meaning. See the next translator’s note on 1:5.
³tn The word ajggeliva (angelia) occurs only twice in the NT, here and in 1 John 3:11. It is a cognate of ejpaggeliva (epangelia) which occurs much more frequently (some 52 times in the NT) including 1 John 2:25. BAGD 7 s.v. ajggeliva 1 offers the meaning “message” which suggests some overlap with the semantic range of lovgo" (logos), although in the specific context of 1:5 BAGD suggests a reference to the gospel. (The precise “content” of this “good news’ is given by the o{ti [oti] clause which follows in 1:5b.) The word ajggeliva here is closely equivalent to eujaggevlion (euangelion): (1) it refers to the proclamation of the eyewitness testimony about the life and ministry of Jesus Christ as proclaimed by the author and the rest of the apostolic witnesses (prologue, esp. 1:3-4), and (2) it relates to the salvation of the hearers/readers, since the purpose of this proclamation is to bring them into fellowship with God and with the apostolic witnesses (1:3). Because of this the adjective “gospel” is included in the English translation.
⁴tn The key to understanding the first major section of 1 John, 1:5-3:10, is found in the statement in v. 5: “God is light and in him there is no darkness at all.” The idea of “proclamation”—the apostolic proclamation of eyewitness testimony which the prologue introduces (1:2, 3)—is picked up in 1:5 by the use of the noun ajggeliva (angelia) and the verb ajnaggevllomen (anangellomen), cognate to the verb in 1:3. The content of this proclamation is given by the o{ti (oti) clause in 1:5 as the assertion that God is light, so we should understand this statement as the author’s formulation of the apostolic eyewitness testimony introduced in the prologue. (This corresponds to the apostolic preaching elsewhere referred to as khvrugma [khrugma], although the term the Apostle John uses here is ajggeliva.)
sn Following the theme statement in 1:5, God is light and in him there is no darkness at all, the author presents a series of three claims and counterclaims that make up the first unit of 1 John (1:5-2:2). The three claims begin with “if” (1:6, 1:8, 1:10) and the three counterclaims begin with “but if” (1:7, 1:9, 2:1).
⁵tn Or “communion”; or “association” (a reality shared in common, so in this case, “genuine association”).
⁶tn The context of this statement in 1:6 indicates clearly that the progressive (continuative or durative) aspect of the present tense must be in view here.
sn The relationship of the phrase keep on walking to if we say is very important for understanding the problem expressed in 1:6. If one should say (ei[pwmen, eipwmen) that he has fellowship with God, and yet continues walking (peripatw'men, peripatwmen) in the darkness, then it follows (in the apodosis, the “then” clause) that he is lying and not practicing the truth.
⁷tn Or “living according to…”
⁸tn Or “communion”; or “association” (a reality shared in common, so in this case, “genuine association”).
⁹tn Or “purifies.”
¹⁰tn BAGD 43 s.v. aJmartiva 1 defines this term as “every departure from the way of righteousness, both human and divine” (see 1 John 5:17 where aJmartiva [Jamartia] and ajdikiva [adikia] are related). This word occurs 17 times in 1 John, of which 11 are singular and 6 are plural.
sn From all sin. Sometimes a distinction between singular “sin” and plural “sins” has been suggested: Some would see the singular all sin of 1:7 as a reference to sinfulness before conversion and the plural sins of 1:9 as a reference to sins committed after one became a Christian. This amounts to making 1:7 refer to initial justification and 1:9 to sanctification. But the phrase all sin in 1:7 is so comprehensive that it can hardly be limited to pre-conversion sins, and the emphasis on “walking” in 1:7 strongly suggests that the Christian life is in view (not one’s life before conversion). In 1 John 1:8 sin appears as a condition or characteristic quality, which in 1:10 is regarded as universal. Apart from forgiveness in Christ it results in alienation from God (2:15) and spiritual death (3:14). But according to 1 John 1:7, cleansing from sin is possible by the blood (representing the sacrificial death) of Jesus.
¹¹tn Grk “say we do not have sin.” The use of e[cw + aJmartiva (ecw + Jamartia) is an expression limited to John and 1 John in the NT. On the analogy with other constructions where e[cw governs an abstract noun (e.g., 1 John 1:3, 1:6, 1:7, 2:28, 3:3, 3:15, 3:21, 4:16, 4:17, 5:12-13), it indicates that a state is involved, which in the case of aJmartiva would refer to a state of sin. The four times the expression e[cw + aJmartiva occurs in the Gospel of John (9:41, 15:22, 15:24, 19:11) all refer to situations where a wrong action has been committed or a wrong attitude has already existed, resulting in a state of sin, and then something else happens which further emphasizes the evil of that action or attitude. Here in 1 John 1:8 the sense is the same. The author is addressing people who have sinned (resulting in a state of sin), warning them that they cannot claim to be free from the guilt of that sin. The context of 1 John does not imply libertinism (where sins are flaunted as a way of demonstrating one’s “liberty”) on the part of the opponents, since the author makes no explicit charges of immoral behavior against his opponents. The worst the author explicitly says is that they have failed to love the brethren (1 John 3:17). It seems more likely that the opponents were saying that things a believer did after conversion were not significant enough to be “sins” that could challenge one’s intimate relationship with God (a relationship the author denies that the opponents have to begin with).
¹²tn Or “just.”
¹³tn The i{na (ina) followed by the subjunctive is here equivalent to the infinitive of result, an ‘ecbatic’ or consecutive use of i{na according to BAGD 378 s.v. II.2 where 1 John 1:9 is listed as a specific example. The translation with participles (“forgiving, …cleansing”) conveys this idea of result.
¹⁴tn Or “purifying.”
¹⁵sn My little children. The direct address by the author to his readers at the beginning of 2:1 marks a break in the pattern of the opponents’ claims (indicated by the phrase if we say followed by a negative statement in the apodosis, the “then” clause) and the author’s counter-claims (represented by if with a positive statement in the apodosis) made so far in 1:6-10. The seriousness of this last claim (in 1:10) causes the author to interrupt himself to address the readers as his faithful children and to explain to them that while he wants them not to sin, they may be assured that if they do, they can look to Jesus Christ, as their advocate with the Father, to intercede for them. After this, the last of the author’s three counter-claims in 1:5-2:2 is found in the if clause in 2:1b.
¹⁶tn There is some dispute over the significance of the aorist tense of aJmavrthte (Jamarthte): (1) F. Stagg (“Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy in the Johannine Epistles,” RevExp 67 [1970]:423-32, esp. 428) holds that the aorist is nondescriptive, saying nothing about the nature of the action itself, but only that the action has happened. This is indeed the normal aspectual value of the aorist tense in general, but there is some disagreement over whether with this particular verb there are more specific nuances of meaning. (2) M. Zerwick (Biblical Greek, 82, §251) and N. Turner (J. H. Moulton, Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3: Syntax, by N. Turner [Edinburgh: Clark, 1963], 72) agree that the present tense of aJmartavnw (Jamartanw) means “to be in a state of sin” (i.e., a sinner) while the aorist refers to specific acts of sin. Without attempting to sort out this particular dispute, it should be noted that certain verbs do have different nuances of meaning in different tenses, nuances which do not derive solely from the aspectual value of the tense per se, but from a combination of semantic factors which vary from word to word.
sn So that you may not sin. It is clear the author is not simply exhorting the readers not to be habitual or repetitive sinners, as if to imply that occasional acts of sin would be acceptable! The purpose of the author here is that the readers not sin at all, just as Jesus told the man he healed in John 5:14 “Don’t sin any more.”
¹⁷tn The description of the Holy Spirit as ‘Paraclete’ is unique to the Gospel of John (14:16, 14:26, 15:26, and 16:7). Here, in the only other use of the word in the NT, it is Jesus, not the Spirit, who is described as paravklhto" (paraklhto"). We should have been prepared for this interchangeability of terminology, however, by John 14:16, where Jesus told the disciples that he would ask the Father to send them ‘another’ paraclete (a[llo", allos, “another of the same kind”). This implies that Jesus himself had been a paraclete in his earthly ministry to the disciples. This does not answer all the questions about the meaning of the word here, though, since it is not Jesus’ role as a paraclete during his earthly ministry which is in view, but his role as a paraclete in heaven before the Father. The context suggests intercession in the sense of legal advocacy, as stress is placed upon the righteousness of Jesus (*Ihsou'n CristoVn divkaion, Ihsoun Criston dikaion). The concept of Jesus’ intercession on behalf of believers does occur elsewhere in the NT, notably in Rom 8:34 and Heb 7:25. Something similar is taking place here, and is the best explanation of 1 John 2:1. An English translation like “advocate” or “intercessor” conveys this.
¹⁸tn Or “Jesus Christ the righteous.”
¹⁹tn A suitable English translation for this word (iJlasmov", Jilasmos) is a difficult and even controversial problem. “Expiation,” “propitiation,” and “atonement” have all been suggested. L. Morris, in a study that has become central to discussions of this topic (The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955], 140), sees as an integral part of the meaning of the word (as in the other words in the iJlavskomai [Jilaskomai] group) the idea of turning away the divine wrath, suggesting that “propitiation” is the closest English equivalent. It is certainly possible to see an averting of divine wrath in this context, where the sins of believers are in view and Jesus is said to be acting as Advocate on behalf of believers. R. Brown’s point (Epistles of John, 220-21), that it is essentially cleansing from sin which is in view here and in the other use of the word in 4:10, is well taken, but the two connotations (averting wrath and cleansing) are not mutually exclusive and it is unlikely that the propitiatory aspect of Jesus’ work should be ruled out entirely in the usage in 2:2. Nevertheless, the English word “propitiation” is too technical to communicate to many modern readers, and a term like “atoning sacrifice” (given by Webster’s New International Dictionary as a definition of “propitiation”) is more appropriate here. Another term, “satisfaction,” might also convey the idea, but “satisfaction” in Roman Catholic theology is a technical term for the performance of the penance imposed by the priest on a penitent.
sn The Greek word (iJlasmov", Jilasmos) behind the phrase atoning sacrifice conveys both the idea of “turning aside divine wrath” and the idea of “cleansing from sin.”
²⁰tn Many translations supply an understood repetition of the word “sins” here, thus: “but also for the sins of the whole world.”
²¹tn The translation of kaiv (kai) at the beginning of 2:3 is important for understanding the argument, because a similar kaiv occurs at the beginning of 1:5. The use here is not just a simple continuative or connective, but has more of a resumptive force, pointing back to the previous use in 1:5.
sn Now. The author, after discussing three claims of the opponents in 1:6, 8, and 10 and putting forward three counter-claims of his own in 1:7, 1:9, and 2:1, now returns to the theme of “God as light” introduced in 1:5. The author will now discuss how a Christian may have assurance that he or she has come to know the God who is light, again by contrast with the opponents who make the same profession of knowing God, but lack the reality of such knowledge, as their behavior makes clear.
²²tn Grk “know him.” (1) Many take the third person pronoun aujton (auton) to refer to Jesus Christ, since he is mentioned in 2:1 and the pronoun aujtov" (autos) at the beginning of 2:2 clearly refers to him. But (2) it is more likely that God is the referent here, since (a) the assurance the author is discussing here is assurance that one has come to know God (all the claims of the opponents in 1:5-2:11 concern knowing and having fellowship with the God who is light); (b) when Jesus Christ is explicitly mentioned as an example to follow in 1 John 2:6, the pronoun ejkei'no" (ekeinos) is used to distinguish this from previous references with aujtov"; (c) the kaiv (kai) which begins 2:3 is parallel to the kaiv which begins 1:5, suggesting that the author is now returning to the discussion of God who is light, a theme introduced in 1:5. The author will now discuss how a Christian may have assurance that he or she has come to know the God who is light.
²³tn Grk “know him.” See the note on the phrase “know God” in 1 John 2:3 for explanation.
²⁴tn Grk “in him.”
²⁵tn The Greek verb mevnw (menw) is commonly translated into contemporary English as “remain” or “abide”, but both of these translations have some problems: (1) “Abide” has become in some circles almost a ‘technical term’ for some sort of special intimate fellowship or close relationship between the Christian and God, so that one may speak of Christians who are ‘abiding’ and Christians who are not. It is accurate to say the word indicates a close, intimate (and permanent) relationship between the believer and God. However, it is very important to note that for the author of the Gospel of John and the Johannine Epistles every genuine Christian has this type of relationship with God, and the person who does not have this type of relationship (cf. 2 John 9) is not a believer at all (in spite of what he or she may claim). (2) On the other hand, to translate mevnw as “remain” removes some of these problems, but creates others: in certain contexts, such a translation can give the impression that those who currently “remain” in this relationship with God can at some point choose not to “remain”, that is, to abandon their faith and return to an unsaved condition. While one may easily think in terms of the author’s opponents in 1 John as not “remaining,” the author makes it inescapably clear in 2:19 that these people, in spite of their claims to know God and be in fellowship with God, never really were genuine believers. (3) In an attempt to avoid both these misconceptions, this translation renders mevnw as “reside” except in cases where the context indicates that “remain” is a more accurate nuance, that is, in contexts where a specific change of status or movement from one position to another is in view.
sn The Greek word mevnw (menw) translated resides indicates a close, intimate (and permanent) relationship between the believer and God. It is very important to note that for the author of the Gospel of John and the Johannine Epistles every genuine Christian has this type of relationship with God, and the person who does not have this type of relationship (cf. 2 John 9) is not a believer at all (in spite of what he or she may claim).
²⁶tn Grk “in him.” Context indicates a reference to God since a different pronoun, ejkeino" (ekeinos), is used later in the same verse to indicate a reference to Jesus. See the note on “Jesus” later in this verse.
²⁷tn That is, ought to behave in the same way Jesus did. “Walking” is a common NT idiom for one’s behavior or conduct.
²⁸tn Grk “that one.” Context indicates a reference to Jesus here. It is clear that ejkei'no" (ekeinos) here does not refer to the same person as aujtw'/ (autw) in 2:6a. The switch to ejkei'no" indicates a change in the referent, and a reference to Jesus Christ is confirmed by the verb periepavthsen (periepathsen), an activity which can only describe Jesus’ earthly life and ministry, the significance of which is one of the points of contention the author has with the opponents. In fact, ejkei'no" occurs 6 times in 1 John (2:6, 3:3, 3;5, 3:7, 3:16, and 4:17), and each one refers to Jesus Christ.
²⁹tn See John 13:34-35.
³⁰tn “Already” is not is the Greek text, but is supplied for clarity.
³¹tn “In him” probably refers to Jesus Christ since the last third person pronoun in 2:6 referred to Jesus Christ and there is no indication in the context of a change in referent.
³²tn The clause beginning with o{ti (oti) is often taken as (1) epexegetical or (2) appositional to the commandment (ejntolhvn, entolhn) giving a further explanation or clarification of it. But the statement following the o{ti is about light and darkness, and it is difficult to see how this has anything to do with the commandment, especially as the commandment is related to the “new commandment” of John 13:34 for believers to love one another. It is far more likely that (3) the o{ti clause should be understood as causal, but this still does not answer the question of whether it offers the reason for writing the “new commandment” itself or the reason for the relative clause (“that is true in him and in you”). It probably gives the reason for the writing of the commandment, although R. Brown (Epistles of John, 268) thinks it refers to both.
³³sn The reference to the darkness…passing away and the true light…already shining is an allusion to John 1:5, 1:9, and 8:12. Because the author sees the victory of light over darkness as something already begun, he is writing Jesus’ commandment to love one another to the readers as a reminder to (1) hold fast to what they have already heard (see 1 John 2:7) and (2) not be influenced by the teaching of the opponents.
³⁴tn Grk “the one saying he is in the light and hating his brother.” Here kaiv (kai) has been translated as “but” because of the contrast present in the two clauses.
³⁵tn Grk “brother.” Here the term “brother” means “fellow believer” or “fellow Christian” (cf. BAGD 16 s.v. ajdelfov" 2).
³⁶tn Grk “brother”; see the note on the term “fellow Christian” in 2:9.
³⁷tn The third person pronoun aujtw'/ (autw) could refer either (1) to the person who loves his brother or (2) to the light itself which has no cause for stumbling “in it.” The following verse (2:11) views darkness as operative within a person, and the analogy with Ps 119:165 also suggests that the person is the referent here.
³⁸sn The one who hates his fellow Christian. The author’s paradigm for the opponents portrays them as those who show hatred for fellow Christians (Grk “brothers,” but not referring to one’s physical siblings). This charge will be much more fully developed in chap. 3, where the author will compare the opponents to Cain (who is the model for one who hates a brother, since he ultimately murdered his own brother). In 1 John 3:17 the specific charge against the opponents will be failing to give material aid to a brother in need.
³⁹sn 1 John 2:3-11. The section 2:3-11 contains three claims to intimate knowledge of God, each introduced by the phrase the one who says (participles in the Greek text) in 2:4, 2:6, and 2:9. As with the three claims beginning with “if” in the previous section (1:6, 1:8, 1:10), these indirectly reflect the claims of the opponents. Each claim is followed by the author’s evaluation and its implications.
⁴⁰sn I am writing to you. The author appears to have been concerned that some of his readers, at least, would accept the claims of the opponents as voiced in 1:6, 8, and 10. The counter-claims the author has made in 1:7, 9, and 2:1 seem intended to strengthen the readers and reassure them (among other things) that their sins are forgiven. Further assurances of their position here is in keeping with such a theme, and indeed, the topic of reassurance runs throughout the entire letter (see the purpose statement in 5:13). Finally, in such a context the warning which follows in 2:15-17 is not out of place because the author is dealing with a community that is discouraged by the controversy which has arisen within it and that is in need of exhortation.
⁴¹tn The o{ti (oti) that follows all six occurrences of gravfw/e[graya (grafw/egraya) in 2:12-14 can be understood as introducing either (1) a causal clause or (2) a content clause (if content, it could be said to introduce a direct object clause or an indirect discourse clause). Many interpreters have favored a causal translation, so that in each of the six cases what follows the o{ti gives the reason why the author is writing to the recipients. Usage in similar constructions is not decisive because only one other instance of gravfw followed by o{ti occurs in 1 John (2:21), and that context is just as ambiguous as this one. On other occasions gravfw does tend to be followed by a noun or pronoun functioning as direct object. This might argue for the content usage here, but it could also be argued that the direct object in the six instances in these verses is understood, namely, the content of the entire letter itself. Thus the following o{ti clause could still be causal. Grammatical considerations aside, these uses of o{ti are more likely content here rather than causal because such a meaning better fits the context. If the uses of o{ti are understood as causal, it is difficult to see why the author immediately gives a warning in the section that follows about loving the world. The confidence he has expressed in his readers (if the o{ti clauses are understood as causal) would appear to be ill-founded if he is so concerned about their relationship to the world as 2:15-17 seems to indicate. On the other hand, understanding the o{ti clauses as content clauses fits very well the context of reassurance which runs throughout the letter.
⁴²tn “His” probably refers to Jesus Christ (note the last reference was to Jesus in 2:8 and before that in 2:6; also the mention of sins being forgiven suggests Jesus’ work on the cross.
⁴³tn See the note on “that” in v. 12.
⁴⁴tn See the note on “that” in v. 12.
⁴⁵sn The phrase the evil one is used in John 17:15 as a reference to Satan. Satan is also the referent here and in the four other occurrences in 1 John (2:14, 3:12, 5:18, and 5:19).
⁴⁶tn See the note on “that” in v. 12.
⁴⁷tn See the note on “that” in v. 12.
⁴⁸tn See the note on “that” in v. 12.
⁴⁹tn The genitive bivou (biou) is difficult to translate: (1) Many understand it as objective, so that bivo" (bios, “material life”) becomes the object of one’s ajlazoneiva (alazoneia; “pride” or “boastfulness”). Various interpretations along these lines refer to boasting about one’s wealth, showing off one’s possessions, boasting of one’s social status or life-style. (2) It is also possible to understand the genitive as subjective, however, in which case the bivo" itself produces the ajlazoneiva. In this case, the material security of one’s life and possessions produces a boastful overconfidence. This understanding better fits the context here: we are dealing with people who operate purely on a human level and have no spiritual dimension to their existence. This is the person who loves the world, whose affections are all centered on the world, who has no love for God or spiritual things (“the love of the Father is not in him,” 2:15).
sn The arrogance produced by material possessions. The person who thinks he has enough wealth and property to protect himself and insure his security has no need for God (or anything outside himself).
⁵⁰tn The translation “remain” is used for mevnw (menw) here because the context contrasts the transience of the world and its desires with the permanence of the person who does God’s will.
⁵¹sn Antichrists are John’s description for the opponents and their false teaching, which is at variance with the apostolic eyewitness testimony about who Jesus is (cf. 1:1-4). The identity of these opponents has been variously debated by scholars, with some contending (1) that these false teachers parted company with the apostolic band (“went out from us,” v. 19). It is much more likely (2) that they arose from within the Christian communities to which John is writing, however, and with which he identifies himself. This identification can be seen in the interchange of the pronouns “we” and “you” between 1:10 and 2:1, for example, where “we” does not refer only to John and the other apostles, but is inclusive, referring to both himself and the Christians he is writing to (2:1, “you”).
⁵²tn See note on the translation of the Greek verb mevnw (menw) in 2:6. Here mevnw is translated as “remained” since it is clear that a change of status or position is involved. The opponents departed from the author’s congregation(s) and showed by this departure that they never really belonged. Had they really belonged, they would have stayed (“remained”).
⁵³tn The phrase “they went out from us” is not repeated a second time in the Greek text, but for clarity it is necessary to repeat it in the English translation.
⁵⁴tn Grk “in order that it may be demonstrated.” The passive infinitive has been translated as active and the purpose clause translated by an infinitive in keeping with contemporary English style.
⁵⁵sn All of them do not belong to us. The opponents chose to depart rather than remain in fellowship with the community to which the author writes and with which he associates himself. This demonstrates conclusively to the author that they never really belonged to that community at all (in spite of what they were claiming). 1 John 2:19 indicates that the departure was apparently the opponents’ own decision rather than being thrown out or excommunicated. But for John, if they had been genuine believers, they would have remained in fellowship. Now they have gone out into the world, where they belong (compare 1 John 4:5).
⁵⁶tc pavnte" (pantes, nominative plural in “you all know”) is read by Í B P Y 398 1838 1852 cop^sa Jerome Hesychius. A C K 049 33 614 1739 Byz latt and several other versional witnesses (mostly secondary) have the accusative pavnta (panta, “you know all things”). The evidence favors the nominative reading, but it is not overwhelming. At the same time, the internal evidence supports the nominative, for a variety of reasons. A scribe would naturally tend to give the transitive verb a direct object, augured especially by the parallel in the first half of the verse. And intrinsically, the argument seems to be in balance with v. 19: the “all” who have gone out and are not ‘in the know’ with the “all” who have an anointing, and know that they are true believers. Further, as Brown points out, “the fact of their knowledge (pantes), not the extent of its object (panta), seems best to fit the reassurance” (R. Brown, The Epistles of John, 349). Brown further points out the connection with the new covenant in Jer 31 with this section of 1 John, esp. Jer 31: 34—“they all [pantes] shall know me.” Since 1 John alludes to Jer 31, without directly quoting it, this is all the more reason to see the nominative as original: allusions are often overlooked by scribes (transcriptional evidence), but support the intrinsic evidence. Thus, the evidence is solidly (though not overwhelmingly) behind the nominative reading.
⁵⁷tn The interpretation of the three o{ti clauses in v. 21 is very difficult: (1) All three instances of o{ti (oti) may be causal (so NASB, NIV, NEB). (2) The first two may be causal while the third indicates content (declarative or recitative o{ti, so KJV, RSV, TEV, NRSV). (3) However, it is best to take all three instances as indicating content because this allows all three to be subordinate to the verb e[graya (egraya) as compound direct objects. The author writes to reassure his readers (a) that they do indeed know the truth (first two uses of o{ti) and (b) that no lie is of the truth (third use).
⁵⁸tn See the note on the first occurrence of “that” in v. 21.
⁵⁹tn See the note on the first occurrence of “that” in v. 21.
⁶⁰tn Or “the Messiah”
⁶¹tc The Byzantine text omits the last eight words of this verse, “The person who confesses the Son has the Father also” (oJ oJmologw'n toVn uiJoVn kaiV toVn patevra e[cei, Jo Jomologwn ton Juion kai ton patera ecei). Although shorter readings are often preferred (since scribes would tend to add material rather than delete it), if an unintentional error is likely, shorter readings are generally considered secondary. This is a classic example of such an unintentional omission: the toVn patevra e[cei of the preceding clause occasioned the haplography, with the scribe’s eye skipping from one ton patera ecei to the other. (Readings such as this also suggest that the Byzantine text may have originated [at least for 1 John and probably the general epistles] in a single archetype.
⁶²tn The word translated “remain” may also be translated “reside” (3 times in 2:24). See also the notes on the translation of the Greek verb mevnw (menw) in 2:6 and in 2:19. Here the word can really have both nuances of “residing” and “remaining” and it is impossible for the English reader to catch both nuances if the translation provides only one. This occurs three times in 2:24.
⁶³tn It is difficult to know whether the phrase kaiV au{th ejstin (kai auth estin) refers (1) to the preceding or (2) to the following material, or (3) to both. The same phrase occurs at the beginning of 1:5, where it serves as a transitional link between the prologue (1:1-4) and the first major section of the letter (1:5-3:10). It is probably best to see the phrase here as transitional as well; thus kaiv (kai) is translated “now” rather than “and.” The accusative phrase at the end of v. 25, thVn zwhVn thVn aijwvnion (thn zwhn thn aiwnion), stands in apposition to the relative pronoun h}n (hn), whose antecedent is hJ ejpaggeliva (h epangelia; see BDF §295). Thus the “promise” consists of “eternal life.”
⁶⁴tn The pronoun could refer to God or Jesus Christ, but a reference to Jesus Christ is more likely here.
⁶⁵tn Grk “he himself promised.” The repetition of the cognate verb “promised” after the noun “promise” is redundant in English.
⁶⁶sn The promise consists of eternal life, but it is also related to the concept of “remaining” in 2:24. The person who “remains in the Son and in the Father” thus has this promise of eternal life from Jesus himself. Consistent with this, 1 John 5:12 implies that the believer has this eternal life now, not just in the future, and this in turn agrees with John 5:24.
⁶⁷sn The phrase those who are trying to deceive you in 1 John 2:26 is a clear reference to the secessionist opponents mentioned earlier in 1 John 2:19, who are attempting to deceive the people the author is writing to.
⁶⁸sn The anointing. The “anointing” (cri'sma, crisma) which believers have received refers to the indwelling Holy Spirit which has been given to them at their conversion.
⁶⁹sn The pronoun could refer to God or Jesus Christ, but a reference to Jesus Christ is more likely here.
⁷⁰tn This use of mevnw (menw) is translated “reside” both times in 2:27 because it refers to the current status of believers.
⁷¹sn The pronoun could refer (1) to God or (2) to Jesus Christ, but a reference to Jesus Christ is more likely here.
⁷²tn Grk “and is not a lie, and just as.”
⁷³tn Or “he.”
⁷⁴tn The verb may be read as either (1) indicative or (2) imperative mood. The same verb is found in the following verse, 2:28, but the address to the readers there seems clearly to indicate an imperative. On analogy some have called for an imperative here, but others have seen this as suggesting an indicative here, so that the author is not repeating himself. An indicative is slightly more likely here. Up to this point the thrust of the author has been reassurance rather than exhortation, and an indicative here (“…you reside in him”) balances the indicative in the first part of 2:27 (“the anointing which you received from him resides in you…”). With the following verse the author switches from reassurance (the readers at the time he is writing still ‘remain’; they have not yet adopted the teaching of the opponents) to exhortation (he is writing so that they will ‘remain’ and not succumb to the deception of the opponents).
⁷⁵tn Again, as at the end of 2:27, the verb mevnete (menete) may be read as either (1) indicative or (2) imperative mood. At the end of 2:27 we opted for an indicative because the author had been attempting to reassure his readers that they did indeed possess eternal life, and also because an indicative at the end of 2:27 balances the indicative reference to the “anointing” residing in the readers at the beginning of the verse. With the return in 2:28 to the eschatological note introduced in 2:18, however, it appears that the author switches from reassurance to exhortation. At the time he is writing them, the readers do still “remain” since they have not yet adopted the heretical teaching of the opponents. But now the author wants to forestall the possibility that they might do so at some point, and so he begins this section with an exhortation to the readers to “reside/remain” in Christ. This suggests that we should read mevnete in the present verse as imperative rather than indicative, a view made even more probable by the following i{na (ina) clause which states the purpose for the exhortation: in order that at the parousia (second advent) when Jesus Christ is revealed, the readers may have confidence and not shrink back from him in shame when he appears.
⁷⁶sn A reference to Jesus Christ is more likely here. Note the mention of the second coming (second advent) at the end of this verse.
⁷⁷tn In this context ejavn (ean) does not indicate uncertainty about whether or not Christ will return, but rather uncertainty about the exact time when the event will take place. In the Koine period ejavn could mean “when” or “whenever” and was virtually the equivalent of o{tan ({otan; see BAGD 211 s.v. ejavn I.1.d). It has this meaning in John 12:32 and 14:3.
⁷⁸tn Grk “at his coming.”
sn Have confidence…shrink away from him in shame when he comes back. Once again in the antithetical framework of Johannine thought (that is, the author’s tendency to think in terms of polar opposites), there are only two alternatives, just as there are only two alternatives in John 3:18-21, a key section for the understanding of the present passage in 1 John. Anyone who does not ‘remain’ demonstrates (just as the opponents demonstrated by their departure from the community in 2:19) that whatever profession he has made is false and he is not truly a believer.
⁷⁹tn The mood of ginwvskete (ginwskete) may be understood as (1) indicative or (2) imperative. It is better to understand the verb here as indicative, because in 1 John “knowledge” is something one has as a result of being a believer (2:3, 2:5, 2:20, 2:21, 3:16, 3:19, 3:24, 4:2. 4:13, 5:2) rather than something one has to be exhorted about. The change in verbs from oi\da (oida) to ginwvskw (ginwskw) is another example of Johannine stylistic variation.
⁸⁰tn The verb gennavw (gennaw) presents a translation problem: (1) should the passive be translated archaically “be begotten” (the action of the male parent) (BAGD 155 s.v. 1.a) or (2) should it be translated “be born” (as from a female parent) (BAGD s.v. 2)? A number of modern translations (RSV, NASB, NIV) have opted for the latter, but (3) the imagery expressed in 1 John 3:9 clearly refers to the action of the male parent in procreating a child, as does 5:1 (“everyone who loves the father loves the child fathered by him”), and so a word reflecting the action of the male parent is called for here. The contemporary expression “fathered by” captures this idea.
¹tn The i{na (ina) clause is best understood (1) as epexegetical (or explanatory), clarifying the love (ajgavphn, agaphn) that the Father has given to believers. Although it is possible (2) to regard the i{na as indicating result, the use of potaphvn (potaphn, “what sort of”) to modify ajgavphn suggests that the idea of “love” will be qualified further in the following context, and this qualification is provided by the epexegetical i{na clause.
²tn “Indeed” is not in the Greek text but is supplied to indicate emphasis.
³tc The phrase kaiV ejsmen (kai esmen, “and we are”) is omitted in K L 049 69 Byz et alii. There seems to be no theological reason to omit the words. This has all the earmarks of a classic case of homoioteleuton, for the preceding word (klhqw'men, klhqwmen, “we should be called”) ends in -men (-men).
tn The indicative mood indicates that the verb ejsmevn (esmen) at the end of 3:1a is not governed by the i{na (ina) and does not belong with the i{na clause, since this would have required a subjunctive. If the verb ejsmevn were subjunctive, the force of the clause would be “that we should be called children of God, and be (children of God).” With ejsmevn as indicative, the clause reads “that we should be called children of God, and indeed we are (children of God).”
⁴tn Lexically it is clear that this phrase indicates reason, but what is not clear is whether (1) tou'to (touto) refers to what follows, (2) to what precedes, or (3) to both (as with the ejn tou'to [en touto] phrases throughout 1 John). DiaV tou'to (dia touto) occurs 15 times in the Gospel of John, and a pattern emerges which is so consistent that it appears to be the key to the usage here. Six times in the Gospel of John (5:16, 5:18, 8:47, 10:17, 12:18, 12:39) the phrase refers to what follows, and in each of these instances an epexegetical o{ti (oti) clause follows. Nine times in John (1:31, 6:65, 7:21-22, 9:23, 12:27, 13:11, 15:19, 16:15, 19:11) the phrase refers to what precedes, and in none of these instances is it followed by a o{ti clause. The phrase diaV tou'to is used three times in the Johannine Epistles. In two of these (1 John 4:5, 3 John 10) there is no o{ti clause following, and so the diaV tou'to should refer to preceding material. Here in 3:1 there is an epexegetical o{ti clause following, so the diaV tou'to should (unless it is the only exception in the Gospel of John and the Johannine Epistles) refer to what follows, that is, to the o{ti clause itself. This is indicated by the colon in the translation.
⁵sn The pronoun him is a clear reference to Jesus Christ (compare John 1:10).
⁶tn The subject of the third person singular passive verb ejfanerwvqh (efanerwqh) in 3:2 is the following clause tiv ejsovmeqa (ti esomeqa): “Beloved, now we are children of God, and what we shall be has not yet been revealed.”
sn What we will be. The opponents have been revealed as antichrists now (2:19). What believers will be is to be revealed later. In light of the mention of the parousia in 2:28, it seems likely that an eschatological revelation of the true character of believers is in view here.
⁷tc The Byzantine text, the Syriac Peshitta, the Bohairic Coptic, and some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic supply dev (de) after oi[damen (oidamen) in 3:2b. This addition is not likely to be original.
tn The relationship of 3:2b to 3:2a is difficult. It seems best to regard this as a case of asyndeton, although the Byzantine text, the Syriac Peshitta, the Bohairic Coptic, and some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic supply dev (de) after oi[damen (oidamen) in 3:2b. This addition is not likely to be original, but it does reflect a tendency among scribes to see an adversative (contrastive) relationship between 3:2a and 3:2b. This seems to be an accurate understanding of the relationship between the clauses from a logical standpoint: “and what we shall be has not yet been revealed; but we know that whenever he should be revealed, we shall be like him.”
⁸tn The first o{ti (oti) in 3:2 follows oi[damen (oidamen), a verb of perception, and introduces an indirect discourse clause which specifies the content of what believers know: “that whenever it should be revealed, we shall be like him.”
⁹tn In this context ejavn (ean) does not indicate (1) uncertainty about whether or not what believers will be shall be revealed, but rather (2) uncertainty about the exact time the event will take place. In the Koine period ejavn can mean “when” or “whenever” and is virtually the equivalent of o{tan (otan; see BAGD 211 s.v. ejavn I.1.d). It has this meaning in John 12:32 and 14:3. Thus the phrase here should be translated, “we know that whenever it is revealed.”
¹⁰tn Many take the understood subject (“he”) of fanerwqh'/ (fanerwqh) as a reference to Jesus Christ, because the same verb was used in 2:28 in reference to the parousia (second advent). In the immediate context, however, a better analogy is ejfanerwvqh tiv ejsovmeqa (efanerwqh ti esomeqa) in 3:2a. There the clause tiv ejsovmeqa is the subject of the passive verb: “what we shall be has not yet been revealed.” From a grammatical standpoint it makes better sense to see the understood subject of fanerwqh'/ as “it” rather than “he” and as referring back to the clause tiv ejsovmeqa in 3:2a. In the context this makes good sense: “Beloved, now we are children of God, and what we shall be has not yet been revealed. We know that whenever it shall be revealed, we shall be like him, because we shall see him just as he is.” This emphasizes the contrast in the verse between the present state (“not yet been revealed”) and the future state (“shall be revealed”) of believers, and this will of course take place at the parousia.
¹¹sn Is revealed. It may well be that the use of the same passive verb here (from fanerovw, fanerow) is intended to suggest to the reader the mention of the parousia (Christ’s second coming) in 2:28.
¹²tn The second o{ti (oti) in 3:2 is best understood as causal, giving the reason why believers will be like God: “we shall be like him, because we shall see him just as he is.”
¹³sn The phrase we will be like him, because we will see him just as he is has been explained two ways: (1) believers will really become more like God than they now are, and will do this through seeing God as he really is; or (2) believers will realize that they are already like God, but did not realize it until they see him as he is. One who sees a strong emphasis on realized eschatology in the Gospel of John and the Epistles might opt for the second view, since it downplays the difference between what believers already are in the present age and what they will become in the next. It seems better, though, in light of the statement in 3:2a that “what we will be has not yet been revealed” and because of the reference to Christ’s parousia in 2:28, that the author intends to distinguish between the present state of believers and what they will be like in the future. Thus the first view is better, that believers really will become more like God than they are now, as a result of seeing him as he really is.
¹⁴tn “Focused” is not in the Greek text, but is supplied for clarity.
¹⁵sn The verb translated purifies (aJgnivzw, Jagnizw) is somewhat unusual here, since it is not common in the NT, and occurs only once in the Gospel of John (11:55). One might wonder why the author did not use the more common verb aJgiavzw (Jagiazw), as in John 17:19, where Jesus prays, “On their behalf I consecrate myself, so that they may also be consecrated in the truth.” It is possible that there is some overlap between the two verbs and we have here another example of Johannine stylistic variation, but the verb aJgnivzw is used in the context of John 11:55, which describes ritual purification for the Passover, a usage also found in the LXX (Exod 19:10-11, Num 8:21). In this context the use of aJgnivzw would remind the readers that, if they have the future hope of entering the Father’s presence (“seeing him as he is” in 3:2), they need to prepare themselves by living a purified lifestyle now, just as Jesus lived during his earthly life and ministry (cf. 2:6 again). This serves to rebut the opponents’ claims to moral indifferentism, that what the Christian does in the present life is of no consequence.
¹⁶tn Grk “that one.” Context indicates a reference to Jesus here. The switch from aujtov" (autos) to ejkeivno" (ekeinos) parallels 1 John 2:6 (see note there). Since purity of life is mentioned in the context, this almost certainly refers to Jesus in his earthly life and ministry as the example believers should imitate (a major theme of the author throughout 1 John).
¹⁷sn 1 John 3:1-3. All of 3:1-3 is a parenthesis within the present section in which the author reflects on what it means to be fathered by God, a subject he has mentioned at the end of 2:29. The sequence of the argument is then resumed by 3:4, which is in opposition to 2:29.
¹⁸sn Everyone who practices sin. In contrast to the pa'" oJ (pas Jo) + participle construction in 3:3 (everyone who has, pa'" oJ e[cwn [pas Jo ecwn]) which referred to believers, the use of everyone who practices sin (pa'" oJ poiw'n thVn aJmartivan [pas Jo poiwn thn Jamartian]) here refers to the author’s opponents. A similar use, referring to the opponents’ denial of the Son, is found in 2:23.
¹⁹sn The Greek word ajnomiva (anomia) is often translated “iniquity” or “lawlessness” and in the LXX refers particularly to transgression of the law of Moses. In Jewish thought the ideas of sin (aJmartiva, Jamartia) and lawlessness or iniquity (ajnomiva) were often equated because sin involved a violation of the Mosaic law and hence lawlessness. For example, Ps 51:5 LXX sets the two in parallel, and Paul in Rom 4:7 (quoting Ps 32:1) does the same. For the author, it is not violation of the Mosaic Law that results in lawlessness, since he is writing to Christians. The ‘law’ for the author is the law of love, as given by Jesus in the new commandment of John 13:34-35. This is the command to love one’s brother, a major theme of 1 John and the one specific sin in the entire letter which the opponents are charged with (3:17). Since the author has already labeled the opponents “antichrists” in 2:18, it may well be that he sees in their iniquitous behavior of withdrawing from the community and refusing to love the brethren a foreshadowing of the apocalyptic iniquity of the end times (cf. 2 Thess 2:3-8). In Matt 24:11-12 Jesus foretold that false prophets would arise in the end times (cf. 1 John 4:1), that lawlessness (anomia) would increase, and that “the love of many will grow cold” (which would certainly fit the author’s portrait of the opponents here).
²⁰tn Grk “and.”
²¹tn Grk “that one.” The context makes it clear that this is a reference to Jesus, because we are told “he was revealed in order that he might take away sins.” The connection with Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world in John 1:29 provides additional confirmation that the previous use of ejkei'no" (ekeinos) in 3:3b should also be understood as a reference to Jesus, as 2:6 was.
sn In Johannine thought it is Jesus, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29).
²²tn The i{na (ina) clause gives the purpose of Jesus’ self-revelation as he manifested himself to the disciples and to the world during his earthly life and ministry: it was “to take away sins.”
²³tn Here the verb mevnw (menw) refers to the permanence of relationship between Jesus and the believer, as in 2:27 and 2:28. It is clear that Jesus is the referent of the phrase ejn aujtw'/ (en autw) because he is the subject of the discussion in v. 5.
²⁴tn The interpretive problem raised by the use of the present tense aJmartavnei (Jamartanei) in this verse (and poiei' [poiei] in 3:9 as well) is that (a) it appears to teach a sinless state of perfection for the true Christian, and (b) it appears to contradict the author’s own statements in 2:1-2 where he acknowledged that Christians do indeed sin. (1) One widely-used method of reconciling the acknowledgment in 2:1-2 that Christians do sin with the statements in 3:6 and 3:9 that they do not is expressed by M. Zerwick (Biblical Greek, 82). He understands the aorist to mean “commit sin in the concrete, commit some sin or other” while the present means “be a sinner, as a characteristic «state».” N. Turner (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament [Edinburgh: Clark, 1965], 151) argues essentially the same as Zerwick, stating that the present tense aJmartavnei is stative (be a sinner) while the aorist is ingressive (begin to be a sinner, as the initial step of committing this or that sin). Similar interpretations can be found in a number of grammatical works and commentaries. (2) Others, however, have questioned the view that the distinction in tenses alone can convey a “habitual” meaning without further contextual clarification, including C. H. Dodd (The Johannine Epistles [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1946], 79) and Z. C. Hodges (“1 John,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament Edition [Wheaton: Victor, 1983], 894). B. Fanning (Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek [New York: Oxford University Press, 1990]) has concluded that the habitual meaning for the present tense cannot be ruled out, because there are clear instances of habitual presents in the NT where other clarifying words are not present and the habitual sense is derived from the context alone. This means that from a grammatical standpoint alone, the habitual present cannot be ruled out in 1 John 3:6 and 3:9. It is still true, however, that it would have been much clearer if the author had reinforced the habitual sense with clarifying words or phrases in 1 John 3:6 and 9 if that is what he had intended. Dodd’s point, that reliance on the distinction in tenses alone is quite a subtle way of communicating such a vital point in the author’s argument, is still valid. It may also be added that the author of 1 John has demonstrated a propensity for alternating between present and aorist tenses for purely stylistic reasons (see 2:12).
sn Does not sin. It is best to view the distinction between “everyone who practices sin” in 3:4 and “everyone who resides in him” in 3:6 as absolute and sharply in contrast. The author is here making a clear distinction between the opponents, who as moral indifferentists downplay the significance of sin in the life of the Christian, and the readers, who as true Christians recognize the significance of sin because Jesus came to take it away (3:5) and to destroy it as a work of the devil (3:8). This argument is developed more fully by S. Kubo (“I John 3:9: Absolute or Habitual?” AUSS 7 47-56), who takes the opponents as Gnostics who define sin as ignorance. The opponents were probably not adherents of fully-developed gnosticism, but Kubo is right that the distinction between their position and that of the true Christian is intentionally portrayed by the author here as a sharp antithesis. This explanation still has to deal with the contradiction between 2:1-2 and 3:6-9, but this does not present an insuperable difficulty. The author of 1 John has repeatedly demonstrated a tendency to present his ideas antithetically, in “either/or” terms, in order to bring out for the readers the drastic contrast between themselves as true believers and the opponents as false believers. In 2:1-2 the author can acknowledge the possibility that a true Christian might on occasion sin, because in this context he wishes to reassure his readers that the statements he has made about the opponents in the preceding context do not apply to them. But in 3:4-10, his concern is to bring out the absolute difference between the opponents and his readers, so he speaks in theoretical rather than practical terms which do not discuss the possible occasional exception, because to do so would weaken his argument.
²⁵sn The one who practices righteousness. The participle (oJ poiw'n, Jo poiwn) + noun constructions in 3:7 and in 3:8a, the first positive and the second negative, serve to emphasize the contrast between the true Christians (“the one who practices righteousness”) and the opponents (“the one who practices sin,” 3:8a).
²⁶tn Grk “that one.” Context indicates a reference to Jesus here. As with the previous uses of ejkei'no" (ekeinos) by the author of 1 John (2:6, 3:3, 3:5), this one refers to Jesus, as the reference to “the Son of God” in the following verse (3:8) makes clear.
²⁷sn The person who practices sin is of the devil. 1 John 3:10 and John 8:44 might be cited as parallels, because these speak of opponents as the devil’s “children.” However, it is significant that the author of 1 John never speaks of the opponents as “fathered by the devil” in the same sense as Christians are “fathered by God” (3:9). A concept of evildoers as “fathered” by the devil in the same sense as Christians are fathered by God would imply a much more fully developed Gnosticism with its dualistic approach to humanity. The author of 1 John carefully avoids saying that the opponents are “fathered by the devil,” because in Johannine theology not to be fathered by God is to be fathered only by the flesh (John 1:13). This is a significant piece of evidence that 1 John predates the more fully developed Gnosticism of the second century. What the author does say is that the opponents (“the one who practices sin”) are from the devil, in the sense that they belong to him and have given him their allegiance.
²⁸tn The present tense verb has been translated as an extending-from-past present (a present of past action still in progress). See Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 520.
²⁹tn Here eij" tou'to (eis touto) states the purpose for the revelation of God’s Son. However, the phrase offers the same difficulty as all the ejn touvtw/ (en toutw) phrases in 1 John: does it refer to what precedes or to what follows? By analogy with the ejn touvtw/ construction it is probable that the phrase eij" tou'to here refers to what follows: there is a i{na (ina) clause following which appears to be related to the eij" tou'to, and in fact is resumptive (that is, it restates the idea of “purpose” already expressed by the eij" tou'to). Thus the meaning is: “For this purpose the Son of God was revealed: to destroy the works of the devil.”
³⁰tn In the Gospel of John luvsh/ (lush) is used both literally and figuratively. In John 1:27 it refers to a literal loosing of one’s sandal-thong, and in John 2:19 to a destruction of Jesus’ physical body which was understood by the hearers to refer to physical destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. In John 5:18 it refers to the breaking of the Sabbath, in John 7:23 to the breaking of the Law of Moses, and in John 10:35 to the breaking of the scriptures. The verb is again used literally in John 11:44 at the resurrection of Lazarus when Jesus commands that he be released from the graveclothes with which he was bound. Here in 1 John 3:8 the verb means, with reference to “the works of the devil,” to “destroy, bring to an end, abolish, or do away with.” See BAGD 483 s.v. luvw 4 and TDNT 4.336.
³¹tn The imagery expressed here (spevrma aujtou', sperma autou, “his seed”) clearly refers to the action of the male parent in procreation, and so “fathered” is the best choice for translating gennavw (gennaw; see 2:29).
³²tn The problem of the present tense of poiei' (poiei) here is exactly that of the present tense of aJmartavnei (Jamartanei) in 3:6. Here in 3:9 the distinction is sharply drawn between “the one who practices sin” in 3:8, who is of the devil, and “the one who is fathered by God” in 3:9, who “does not practice sin.” See S. Kubo (“I John 3:9: Absolute or Habitual?” AUSS 7 [1969] 47-56) for a fuller discussion of the author’s argument as based on a sharp antithesis between the recipients (true Christians) and the opponents (heretics).
sn Does not practice sin. Again, as in 3:6, the author is making a clear distinction between the opponents, who as moral indifferentists downplay the significance of sin in the life of the Christian, and the recipients, who as true Christians recognize the significance of sin because Jesus came to take it away (3:5) and to destroy it as a work of the devil (3:8). This explanation still has to deal with the apparent contradiction between the author’s statements in 2:1-2 and those here in 3:9, but this is best explained in terms of the author’s tendency to present issues in “either/or” terms to bring out the drastic contrast between his readers, whom he regards as true believers, and the opponents, whom he regards as false. In 2:1-2 the author can acknowledge the possibility that a true Christian might on occasion sin, because in this context he wishes to reassure his readers that the statements he has made about the opponents in the preceding context do not apply to them. But in 3:4-10, his concern is to bring out the absolute difference between the opponents and his readers, so he speaks in theoretical terms which do not discuss the possible occasional exception, because to do so would weaken his argument.
³³tn Both the first and second o{ti (oti) in 3:9 are causal. The first gives the reason why the person who is begotten by God does not practice sin (“because his seed resides in him).” The second gives the reason why the person who is begotten by God is not able to sin (“because he has been begotten by God).”
³⁴tn Grk “his”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
³⁵tn The closest meaning for spevrma (sperma) in this context is “male generating seed” (cf. BAGD 761 s.v. 1.b), although this is a figurative rather than a literal sense. Such imagery is bold and has seemed crudely anthropomorphic to some interpreters, but it poses no more difficulty than the image of God as a male parent fathering Christians that appears in John 1:13 and is behind the use of gennavw (gennaw) with reference to Christians in 1 John 2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1, 5:4, and 5:18.
³⁶tn “Thus” is not in the Greek text, but is supplied to bring out the resultative force of the clause in English.
³⁷tn Once again there is the problem (by now familiar to the interpreter of 1 John) of determining whether the phrase ejn touvtw/ (en toutw) in 3:10 refers (1) to what precedes or (2) to what follows. If it refers to what precedes, it serves to conclude the unit which began with 2:28. The remainder of 3:10 would then form a transition to the following material (another “hinge” passage). On the other hand, if the phrase ejn touvtw/ refers to what follows, then the entirety of 3:10 is a summary statement at the end of 2:28-3:10 which recapitulates the section’s major theme (conduct is the clue to paternity), and provides at the same time a transition to the theme of loving one’s brother which will dominate the following section (3:11-24). Although R. Brown (Epistles of John, 416) prefers to see the phrase as referring to the preceding material, it makes better sense to refer it to the remainder of 3:10 that follows, and see the entirety of 3:10 as both a summary of the theme of the preceding section 2:28-3:10 and a transition to the following section 3:11-24.
³⁸tn The article before dikaiosuvnhn (dikaiosunhn, “righteousness”) is omitted in Í B 33 Byz syr^h. But it is found in A C K P 69 81 323 945 1241 1739 et alii. A decision is difficult, but homoioteleuton probably accounts for the omission.
³⁹tn Grk “brother.” Here the term “brother” means “fellow believer” or “fellow Christian” (cf. BAGD 16 s.v. ajdelfov" 2).
sn Does not love his fellow Christian. The theme of loving one’s fellow Christian appears in the final clause of 3:10 because it provides the transition to the second major section of 1 John, 3:11-5:12, and specifically to the following section 3:11-24. The theme of love will dominate the second major section of the letter (see 1 John 4:8).
⁴⁰tn It could be argued (1) that the o{ti (oti) at the beginning of 3:11 is grammatically subordinate to the preceding statement at the end of 3:10. As BDF §456.1 points out, however, “Subordination with o{ti and diovti is often very loose…and must be translated ‘for’.” Thus (2) o{ti assumes an inferential sense, standing at the beginning of a new sentence and drawing an inference based upon all that has preceded. This is confirmed by the structural parallel between the present verse and 1:5.
⁴¹tn See the same phrase in 1:5.
⁴²sn For this is the gospel message…that we should love one another. The structure of this verse is parallel to 1:5, indicating the beginning of a second major section of the letter.
⁴³sn Since the author states that Cain…was of the evil one (ejk tou' ponhrou', ek tou ponhrou), in the immediate context this imagery serves as an illustration of 3:8a: the person who practices sin is of the devil (ejk tou' diabovlou, ek tou diabolou). This is similar to John 8:44, where Jesus told his opponents “you people are from your father the devil…[who] was a murderer from the beginning.” In both Jewish and early Christian writings Cain is a model for those who deliberately disbelieve; Testament of Benjamin 7:5 looks forward to the punishment of those who “are like Cain in the envy and hatred of brothers.” It is not difficult to see why the author of 1 John used Cain here as a model for the opponents in light of their failure to “love the brothers” (see 1 John 3:17).
⁴⁴tn For the Greek verb sfavzw (sfazw) LN 20.72 states, “to slaughter, either animals or persons; in contexts referring to persons, the implication is of violence and mercilessness—‘to slaughter, to kill.’” As a reflection of this nuance, the translation “brutally murdered” has been used.
⁴⁵tn Grk “brothers,” but the Greek word may be used for “brothers and sisters” or “fellow Christians” as here (cf. BAGD 16 s.v. ajdelfov" 1, where considerable nonbiblical evidence for the plural ajdelfoiv [adelfoi] meaning “brothers and sisters” is cited).
⁴⁶sn An allusion to John 15:18.
⁴⁷tn The first o{ti (oti) clause, following a verb of perception, introduces an indirect discourse clause giving the content of what the readers are assumed to know: that they have passed over from death to life, that is, that they possess eternal life. The author gives a similar reassurance to his readers in 5:13. Alternation between the verbs oi\da (oida) and ginwvskw (ginwskw) in 1 John is probably a matter of stylistic variation (of which the writer is extremely fond) rather than indicative of a subtle difference in meaning.
⁴⁸tn This verb essentially means “to pass over (from one place to another)” according to BAGD 510 s.v. metabaivnw 1.
sn In John 13:1 the same Greek verb translated crossed over here is used to refer to Jesus’ departure from this world as he returns to the Father. Here it is used figuratively to refer to the believer’s transfer from the state of (spiritual) death to the state of (spiritual) life. This use is paralleled in John 5:24, where Jesus states, “the person who hears my message and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned, but has crossed over (same verb) from death to life.”
⁴⁹sn An allusion to John 5:24.
⁵⁰tn The second o{ti (oti) clause in 3:14 is also related to oi[damen (oidamen), but in this case the o{ti is causal, giving the reason why the readers know that they have passed from death to life: because they love the brothers.
⁵¹tn Grk “our brothers.” Here the term “brother” means “fellow believer” or “fellow Christian” (cf. BAGD 16 s.v. ajdelfov" 2).
sn Because we love our fellow Christians. This echoes Jesus’ words in John 13:35, where he states, “by this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” As in 1 John 2:3 and 2:5, obedience becomes the basis for assurance. But the relationship between loving one’s fellow Christian (Grk “brother”) and possessing eternal life goes beyond a proof or external test. Our love for our fellow Christians is in fact a form of God’s love for us because as far as the author of 1 John is concerned, all love comes from God (cf. 4:7-11). Therefore he can add the next line of 3:14, “the one who does not love remains in death.” Why? Because such a person does not have God’s love residing in them at all. Rather, this person can be described as a “murderer”—as the following verse goes on to do. Note also that the author’s description here of the person who does not love as remaining in death is another way of describing a person who remains in darkness, which is a description of unbelievers in John 12:46. This provides further confirmation of the spiritual state of the author’s opponents in 2:9-11.
⁵²sn The one who does not love remains in death. Again, the author has the secessionist opponents in view. Their refusal to show love for the brothers demonstrates that they have not made the transition from (spiritual) death to (spiritual) life, but instead have remained in a state of (spiritual) death.
⁵³tn Grk “brother.” Here the term “brother” means “fellow believer” or “fellow Christian” (cf. BAGD 16 s.v. ajdelfov" 2).
⁵⁴sn Everyone who hates his fellow Christian is a murderer. On one level it is easy to see how the author could say this; the person who hates his brother is one and the same with the person who murders his brother. Behind the usage here, however, is John 8:44, the only other occurrence of the Greek word translated murderer (ajnqrwpoktovno", anqrwpoktonos) in the NT, where the devil is described as a “murderer from the beginning.” John 8:44 refers to the devil’s role in bringing death to Adam and Eve, but even more to his involvement (not directly mentioned in the Genesis account, but elaborated in the intertestamental literature, especially the writings of Philo) in Cain’s murder of his brother Abel. This was the first incident of murder in human history and also the first outward demonstration of the full implications of sin’s entry into the world. Ultimately, then, the devil is behind murder, just as he was behind Cain’s murder of Abel. When the hater kills, he shows himself to be a child of the devil (cf. 1 John 3:10). Once again, conduct is the clue to paternity.
⁵⁵tn The verb mevnw (menw) in 3:15 refers to a spiritual reality (eternal life) which in this case does not reside in the person in question. To speak in terms of eternal life not “residing” in such an individual is not to imply that at some time in the past this person did possess eternal life and subsequently lost it, however. The previous verse (3:14) makes it clear that the individual under discussion here has “remained” in death (the realm of spiritual death) and so has never possessed eternal life to begin with, no matter what he may have claimed. Taken together with the use of mevnw in 3:14, the use here implies that the opponents have “remained” in death all along, and have not ever been genuine believers. Thus “residing” rather than “remaining” is used as the translation for mevnousan (menousan) here.
⁵⁶tn Here the phrase ejn touvtw/ (en toutw) is followed by a o{ti (oti) clause which is epexegetical (or explanatory), and thus ejn touvtw/ refers to what follows.
⁵⁷tn Grk “that one.” Context indicates a reference to Jesus. The mention of the sacrificial death in 3:16 (uJpeVr hJmw'n thVn yuchVn aujtou' e[qhken, Juper hmwn thn yuchn autou eqhken) points to Jesus as the referent here. (This provides further confirmation that ejkei'no" [ekeinos] in 2:6, 3:3, 3:5, and 3:7 refers to Jesus.)
⁵⁸sn References to the fact that Jesus laid down his life using the verb tivqhmi (tiqhmi) are unique to the Gospel of John (10:11, 10:15, 10:17, 10:18, 13:37, 13:38, 15:13) and 1 John (only here). From John’s perspective Jesus’ act in giving up his life sacrificially was a voluntary one; Jesus was always completely in control of the situation surrounding his arrest, trials, and crucifixion (see John 10:18). There is a parallel with 1 John 2:6—there, as here, the life of Jesus (during his earthly ministry) becomes the example for believers to follow. This in turn underscores the importance of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry (especially his sacrificial death on the cross), a point of contention between the author and his opponents in 1 John. See 1 John 4:10 for a further parallel.
⁵⁹tn Grk “brothers.” Here the term “brother” means “fellow believer” or “fellow Christian” (cf. BAGD 16 s.v. ajdelfov" 2).
⁶⁰tn Here bivo" (bios) refers to one’s means of subsistence—material goods or property (BAGD 142 s.v. 3).
sn Note the vivid contrast with Jesus’ example in the preceding verse: he was willing to lay down his very life, but the person in view in 3:17 is not even willing to lay down part of his material possessions for the sake of his brother!
⁶¹tn Grk “brother.” Here the term “brother” means “fellow believer” or “fellow Christian” (cf. BAGD 16 s.v. ajdelfov" 2).
⁶²tn Here a subjective genitive, indicating God’s love for us—the love which comes from God—appears more likely because of the parallelism with “eternal life” (zwhVn aijwvnion, zwhn aiwnion) in 3:15, which also comes from God.
sn The love of God. The author is not saying that the person who does not love his brother cannot love God either (although this may be true enough), but rather that the person who does not love his brother shows by this failure to love that he does not have any of the love which comes from God ‘residing’ in him (the Greek verb used is mevnw [menw]). Once again, conduct is the clue to paternity.
⁶³sn Once again the verb mevnw (menw) is used of a spiritual reality (in this case the love of God) which does or does not reside in a person. Although the author uses the indefinite relative whoever (Grk o}" d* a[n, os d’ an), it is clear that he has the opponents in view here. This is the only specific moral fault he ever charges the opponents with in the entire letter. It is also clear that the author sees it as impossible that such a person, who refuses to offer help in his brother’s time of need (and thus ‘hates’ his brother rather than ‘loving’ him, cf. 3:15) can have any of the love which comes from God residing in him. This person, from the author’s dualistic ‘either/or’ perspective, cannot be a believer. The semantic force of the deliberative rhetorical question, “How can the love of God reside in such a person?”, is therefore a declarative statement about the spiritual condition of the opponents: “The love of God cannot possibly reside in such a person.”
⁶⁴sn How can the love of God reside in such a person? is a rhetorical question which clearly anticipates a negative answer: The love of God cannot reside in such a person.
⁶⁵sn The noun truth here has been interpreted in various ways: (1) There are a number of interpreters who understand the final noun in this series, truth (ajlhqeiva/, alhqeia) in an adverbial sense (“truly” or “in sincerity”), describing the way in which believers are to love. If we compare the two pairs of nouns, however, it is hard to see how the second noun with tongue (glwvssh/, glwssh) in the first pair can have an adverbial sense. (2) It seems better to understand the first noun in each pair as produced by the second noun: words are produced by the tongue, and the (righteous) deeds with which believers are to love one another are produced by the truth.
⁶⁶tn Once again there is the problem of deciding whether the phrase ejn touvtw/ (en toutw) refers (1) to what precedes or (2) to what follows. When an explanatory or epexegetical o{ti (oti) clause follows, and the o{ti clause is not grammatically unrelated to the phrase ejn touvtw/, then the ejn touvtw/ is best understood as referring to what follows. Here there are no less than three o{ti clauses that follow, one in 2:19 and two in 3:20, and thus there is the difficulty of trying to determine whether any one of them is related to the ejn touvtw/ phrase in 3:19. It is relatively easy to eliminate the first o{ti clause (in 3:19) from consideration, because it is related not to ejn touvtw/ but to the verb gnwsovmeqa (gnwsomeqa) as an indirect discourse clause giving the content of what believers know (“that we are of the truth”). As far as the two o{ti clauses in 3:20 are concerned, it is difficult to see how believers could know that they belong to the truth (19a) by means of either, since the first speaks of a situation where they are under self-condemnation (“if our heart condemns us…”) and the second o{ti clause seems to give a further explanation related to the first (“that God is greater than our heart…”). Therefore it seems better to understand the phrase ejn touvtw/ in 3:19 as referring to the preceding context, and this makes perfectly good sense, because 3:18 concludes with a reference to the righteous deeds with which believers are to love one another, which are produced by the truth.
sn By this refers to the righteous deeds mentioned at the end of 3:18, the expressions of love. It is by doing these deeds that believers assure themselves that they belong to the truth, because the outward action reflects the inward reality of their relationship with God. Put another way, ‘conduct is the clue to paternity’.
⁶⁷tn The verb peivqw (peiqw) in the active voice (with the exception of the second perfect and pluperfect) means (a) “to convince”; (b) “to persuade, appeal to”; (c) “to win over, strive to please”; or (d) “to conciliate, pacify, set at ease or rest” (BAGD 639 s.v. peivqw). Interpreters are generally divided between meaning (a) and meaning (d) for the verb in the present context, with BAGD opting for the latter (although it is conveniently pointed out that the text is “not in good order”). In any case the object of the verb peivqw in this context is kardiva (kardia), and this leads to further problems because the meaning of kardiva will affect one’s understanding of peivsomen (peisomen) here.
⁶⁸tn Further difficulties are created by the meaning of kardiva (kardia) in 3:19. Although it may be agreed that the term generally refers to the “center and source of the whole inner life, with its thinking, feeling, and volition” (BAGD 403 s.v. l.b), this may be further subdivided into references to (a) “the faculty of thought…as the organ of natural and spiritual enlightenment,” that is, the mind; (b) “the will and its decisions”; (c) “the emotions, wishes, desires,” i.e., the emotions or feelings; or (d) “moral decisions, the moral life,” that is, the part of the individual where moral decisions are made, which we would call the conscience. Thus kardiva in 3:19 could refer to either the mind, the will, the emotions, or the conscience, and it is not transparently clear which concept the author has primarily in view. In light of the overall context, which seems to discuss the believer’s assurance of his or her standing before God (e[mprosqen aujtou' [emprosqen autou] in 3:19 and the mention of parrhsiva [parrhsia, “boldness” or “confidence”] in 3:21) it seems probable that the conscience, that aspect of one’s kardiva which involves moral choices and the guilt or approval for having made them, is primarily in view here. Thus the meaning “convince” is preferred for the verb peivqw (peiqw), since the overall subject seems to be the believer’s assurance of his or her standing before God, especially in the case when (v. 20) the believer’s conscience attempts to condemn him on account of sin.
⁶⁹tn Both e[mprosqen (emprosqen) in 3:19 and ejnwvpion (enwpion) in 3:22 are improper prepositions and both express the meaning “before” in the sense of “in the presence of.” (1) Some interpreters have tried to see a subtle distinction in meaning between the two in 3:19 and 3:22, but (2) as BDF §214.6 points out, e[mprosqen and ejnwvpion, along with a third classical expression ejnantivon (enantion), all refer to being in someone’s presence and are essentially interchangeable. There can be little doubt that once more the author’s fondness for stylistic variation in terminology is at work here.
⁷⁰tn The first o{ti (oti) in 3:20 may be understood either (1) as causal, “because if our heart condemns us,” or (2) as epexegetical (explanatory), “that if our heart condemns us.” There are two other instances of the combination o{ti ejavn (oti ean) in 1 John, 3:2 and 5:14. In 3:14 the o{ti clearly introduces an indirect discourse (content) clause following oi[damen (oidamen). In 5:14 the o{ti is epexegetical to a preceding statement (“and this is the confidence [hJ parrhsiva, Jh parrhsia] which we have before him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us”). This is analogous to the present situation, and the subject under discussion (the believer’s confidence before God) is also similar (cf. 3:21-22). It is thus more likely, by analogy, that the first o{ti clause in 3:20, o{ti ejaVn kataginwvskh/ hJmw'n hJ kardiva ({oti ean kataginwskh Jhmwn Jh kardia), should also be understood as epexegetical to the preceding clause, e[mprosqen aujtou' peivsomen thVn kardivan (emprosqen autou peisomen thn kardian, “and we convince our heart before him”).
⁷¹tn In Deut 25:1 LXX kataginwvskw (kataginwskw) means “to condemn” in a context where it is in opposition to dikaiou'n (dikaioun, “to acquit”). In Job 42:6 LXX (Symmachus) and Ezek 16:61 LXX (Symmachus) it is used of self-judgment or self-condemnation, and this usage is also found in the intertestamental literature (Sirach 14:2). Testament of Gad 5:3 describes a person oujc uJp* a[llou kataginwskovmeno" ajll* uJpoV th'" ijdiva" kardiva" (ouc Jup’ a[llou kataginwskomeno" all’ Jupo th" idia" kardia", “condemned not by another but by his own heart”). Thus the word has legal or forensic connotations, and in this context refers to the believer’s self-condemnation resulting from a guilty conscience concerning sin.
⁷²tn The use of two o{ti (oti) clauses in close succession is somewhat awkward, but this is nothing new for the author; and indeed he has twice previously used two o{ti clauses in close proximity in 3:2 and 3:14. In both those instances the second o{ti was understood as causal, and (1) some interpreters would do the same here. Unless one understands both of the o{ti clauses in 3:20 as causal, however (an option rejected based on the analogy with 5:14, see the discussion in the previous note on the present verse), the first o{ti clause must be understood as parenthetical in order for the second to be causal. This results in an even more awkward construction. It seems most probable that (2) the second o{ti clause in 3:20 should also be understood as epexegetical (explanatory), and resumptive to the first. The resultant meaning is as follows: “and we convince our heart before him, that if our heart condemns us, that God is greater than our heart and knows all things.”
⁷³tn The conjunction kaiv (kai) which begins 3:22 is epexegetical (explanatory), relating a further implication of the “confidence” (parrhsivan, parrhsian) which believers have before God when their heart (conscience) does not condemn them. They can ask things of God with the expectation of receiving their requests.
⁷⁴tn The o{ti (oti) is clearly causal, giving the reason why believers receive what they ask.
⁷⁵tn The kaiv (kai) is epexegetical/explanatory (or perhaps resumptive) of the commandment(s) mentioned in the preceding verse.
⁷⁶tn This verse begins with the phrase kaiV au{th ejstivn (kai {auth estin; cf. the similar phrase in 3:11 and 1:5), which is explained by the following i{na (ina) clause, “that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ.” The i{na thus introduces a clause which is (1) epexegetical (explanatory) or (2) appositional. By analogy the similar phrase in 3:11 is also followed by an epexegetical i{na clause and the phrase in 1:5 by an epexegetical o{ti (oti) clause.
sn His commandment refers to what follows—the commandment from God is to believe in his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another.
⁷⁷tc The present subjunctive (pisteuvwmen, pisteuwmen) is supported by early and widespread witnesses (Í A C Y 33 1739 et alii), while the aorist subjunctive (pisteuvswmen, pisteuswmen) is found in B Byz. Although the sigma could have been omitted accidentally, the variety of witnesses suggests otherwise.
⁷⁸sn The author of 1 John repeatedly attributes the commandments given to believers as given by God the Father, even though in John 13:34-35 it was Jesus who gave the commandment to love one another. 2 John 4-5 also attributes the commandment to love one another directly to the Father. Thus it is clear that God the Father is the subject of the verb gave here in 3:23.
⁷⁹tn The verb mevnw (menw) is translated “resides” here because this verse refers to the mutual and reciprocal relationship between God and the believer.
sn The verb resides (mevnw, menw) here and again in the second clause of 3:24 refers to the permanence of relationship between God and the believer, as also in 2:6, 4:12, 4:13, 4:15, and 4:16 (3x).
⁸⁰tn Grk “in him.” In context this is almost certainly a reference to God (note the phrase “his Son Jesus Christ” in 3:23).
⁸¹tn Grk “he.” In context this is almost certainly a reference to God (note the phrase “his Son Jesus Christ” in 3:23).
⁸²tn Once again there is the (by now familiar) question of whether the phrase ejn touvtw/ (en toutw) refers to what precedes or to what follows. In this case, the following phrase ejk tou' pneuvmato" (ek tou pneumato") explains the ejn touvtw/ phrase, and so it refers to what follows.
⁸³tn Grk “he.” In context this is almost certainly a reference to God (note the phrase “his Son Jesus Christ” in 3:23).
¹sn 1 John 4:1-6. These verses form one of three units within 1 John that almost all interpreters consider a single unit and do not divide up (the other two are 2:12-14 and 2:15-17). The subject matter is so clearly different from the surrounding context that these clearly constitute separate units of thought. Since the Holy Spirit is not the only spirit active in the world, the author needs to qualify for the recipients how to tell if a spirit comes from God. The “test” is the confession in 4:2.
²tn According to BAGD 202 s.v. dokimavzw 1 the verb means “put to the test, examine.”
³sn Test the spirits. Since in the second half of the present verse the author mentions “false prophets” who have “gone out into the world,” it appears highly probable that his concept of testing the spirits is drawn from the OT concept of testing a prophet to see whether he is a false prophet or a true one. The procedure for testing a prophet is found in Deut 13:2-6 and 18:15-22. An OT prophet was to be tested on the basis of (a) whether or not his predictive prophecies came true (Deut 18:22) and (b) whether or not he advocated idolatry (Deut 13:1-3). In the latter case the people of Israel are warned that even if the prophet should perform an authenticating sign or wonder, his truth or falsity is still to be judged on the basis of his claims, that is, whether or not he advocates idolatry. Here in 1 John the idea of “testing the spirits” comes closer to the second OT example of “testing the prophets” mentioned above. According to 1 John 4:2-3, the spirits are to be tested on the basis of their Christological confession: the person motivated by the Spirit of God will confess Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh, while the person motivated by the spirit of deceit will not confess Jesus and is therefore not from God. This comes close to the idea expressed by Paul in 1 Cor 12:3 where the person speaking charismatic utterances is also to be judged on the basis of his Christological confession: “Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus is anathema,’ and no one is able to say ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit.”
⁴tn The phrase “to determine” is not in the Greek text, but is supplied for clarity.
⁵tn “False prophets” refers to the secessionist opponents (compare 2:19).
⁶tn There is no subordinating conjunction following the ejn touvtw/ (en toutw) here in 4:2, so the phrase could refer either (1) to what precedes or (2) to what follows. Contextually the phrase refers to what follows, because the following clause in 4:2b-4:3a (pa'n pneu'ma o} oJmologei' *Ihsou'n CristoVn…ejk tou' qeou' ejstin, kaiV pa'n pneu'ma o} mhV oJmologei' toVn *Ihsou'n ejk tou' qeou' oujk e[stin), while not introduced by a subordinating conjunction, does explain the preceding clause beginning with ejn touvtw/. In other words, the following clause in 4:2b-3a is analogous to a subordinate clause introduced by an epexegetical i{na (ina) or o{ti (oti), and the relationship can be represented in the English translation by a colon, “By this you know the Spirit of God: every Spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God, but every Spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.”
⁷tn Or “acknowledges.”
⁸tn This forms part of the author’s Christological confession which serves as a test of the spirits. Many interpreters have speculated that the author of 1 John is here correcting or adapting a slogan of the secessionist opponents, but there is no concrete evidence for this in the text. Such a possibility is mere conjecture (see R. Brown, Epistles of John, 492). The phrase may be understood in a number of different ways, however: (1) the entire phrase “Jesus Christ come in the flesh” may be considered the single object of the verb oJmologei' (Jomologei; so B. Westcott, A. Brooke, J. Bonsirven, R. Brown, S. Smalley, and others); (2) the verb oJmologei' may be followed by a double accusative, so that both “Jesus Christ” and “come in the flesh” are objects of the verb; the meaning would be “confess Jesus Christ as come in the flesh” (so B. Weiss, J. Chaine, and others). (3) Another possibility is to see the verb as followed by a double accusative as in (2), but in this case the first object is “Jesus” and the second is “the Christ come in the flesh,” so that what is being confessed is “Jesus as the Christ come in the flesh” (so N. Alexander, J. Stott, J. Houlden, and others). All three options are grammatically possible, although not equally probable. Option (1) has a number of points in its favor: (a) the parallel in 2 John 7 suggests to some that the phrase should be understood as a single object; (b) option (2) makes “Jesus Christ” the name of the preincarnate second Person of the Trinity, and this would be the only place in the Johannine literature where such a designation for the preincarnate Lovgo" (Logos) occurs; and (d) option (3) would have been much clearer if Cristovn (Criston) were accompanied by the article (oJmologei' *Ihsou'n toVn Cristovn, Jomologei Ihsoun ton Criston). Nevertheless option (3) is preferred on the basis of the overall context involving the secessionist opponents: their Christological views would allow the confession of the Christ come in the flesh (perhaps in the sense of the Spirit indwelling believers, although this is hard to prove), but they would have trouble confessing that Jesus was (exclusively) the Christ incarnate. The author’s failure to repeat the qualifying phrases (CristoVn ejn sarkiV ejlhluqovta, Criston en sarki elhluqota) in the negative repetition in 4:3a actually suggests that the stress is on Jesus as the confession the opponents could not or would not make. It is difficult to see how the parallel in 2 John 7 favors option (1), although R. Brown (Epistles of John, 492) thinks it does. The related or parallel construction in John 9:22 (ejavn ti" aujtoVn oJmologhvsh/ Cristovn, ean ti" auton Jomologhsh Criston) provides further support for option (3). This is discounted by Brown because the verb in John 9:22 occurs between the two accusative objects rather than preceding both as here (Epistles of John, 493—although Brown does mention Rom 10:9 as another parallel closer in grammatical structure to 1 John 4:2). Brown does not mention the textual variants in John 9:22, however: both Ì66 and Ì75 (along with K, ˹³ and others) read oJmologhvsh/ aujtoVn Cristovn (Jomologhsh auton Criston). This structure exactly parallels 1 John 4:2, and a case can be made that this is actually the preferred reading in John 9:22; furthermore, it is clear from the context in John 9:22 that Cristovn is the complement (what is predicated of the first accusative) since the object (the first accusative) is aujtovn rather than the proper name *Ihsou'n. The parallel in John 9:22 thus appears to be clearer than either 1 John 4:2 or 2 John 7, and thus to prove useful in understanding both the latter constructions.
⁹tn The kaiv (kai) which begins 4:3 introduces the “negative side” of the test by which the spirits might be known in 4:2-3. Thus it is adversative in force: “every spirit that confesses Jesus as Christ who has come in the flesh is from God, but every Spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.”
¹⁰tn Or “does not acknowledge.”
¹¹tc A number of variants are generated from the simple toVn jIhsou'n (ton Ihsoun). But this short reading is well supported by A B Y 33 81 1739 et alii, and internally best explains the rise of the others.
¹²tn “Spirit” is not in the Greek text but is implied.
¹³sn Them refers to the secessionist opponents, called “false prophets” in 4:1 (compare 2:19).
¹⁴tn “But” supplied here to bring out the context. The conjunction is omitted in the Greek text (asyndeton).
¹⁵tn The phrase ejk touvtou (ek toutou) in 4:6, which bears obvious similarity to the much more common phrase ejn touvtw/ (en toutw), must refer to what precedes, since there is nothing in the following context for it to relate to, and 4:1-6 is recognized by almost everyone as a discrete unit. There is still a question, however, of what in the preceding context the phrase refers to. Interpreters have suggested a reference (1) only to 4:6; (2) to 4:4-6; or (3) to all of 4:1-6. The latter is most likely, because the present phrase forms an inclusion with the phrase ejn touvtw/ in 3:24 which introduces the present section. Thus “by this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit” refers to all of 4:1-6 with its “test” of the spirits by the Christological confession made by their adherents in 4:1-3 and with its emphasis on the authoritative (apostolic) eyewitness testimony to the significance of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry in 4:4-6.
¹⁶sn Who or what is the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit in 1 John 4:6? (1) Some interpreters regard the “spirits” in 4:6 as human spirits. Although 4:1a is ambiguous and might refer either to human spirits or spiritual beings who influence people, it is clear in the context that (2) the author sees behind the secessionist opponents with their false Christology the spirit of the Antichrist, that is, Satan (4:3b), and behind the true believers of the community to which he is writing, the Spirit of God (4:2). This is made clear in 4:4 by the reference to the respective spirits as the One who is in you and the one who is in the world.
¹⁷tn This o{ti (oti) is causal, giving the reason why the readers, as believers, ought to love one another: because love comes from God. The next clause, introduced by kaiv (kai), does not give a second reason (i.e., is not related to the o{ti clause), but introduces a second and additional thought: everyone who loves is fathered by God and knows God.
¹⁸tn As in 2:23 and 3:4, the author uses pa'" (pas) with the present articular participle as a generalization to describe a category of people.
sn From the author’s “either/or” perspective (which tends to see things in terms of polar opposites) the use of a generalization like everyone who presents a way of categorizing the opponents on the one hand and the recipients, whom the author regards as genuine Christians, on the other. Thus everyone who loves refers to all true Christians, who give evidence by their love for one another that they have indeed been begotten by God and are thus God’s children. The opposite situation is described in the following verse, 4:8, where (although everyone [pa'", pas] is omitted) it is clear that a contrast is intended.
¹⁹tn The verb gennavw (gennaw) in this context means to be fathered by God and thus a child of God. The imagery in 1 John is that of the male parent who fathers children (see especially 3:9 and 5:1).
²⁰tn The author proclaims in 4:8 oJ qeoV" ajgavph ejstivn (Jo qeo" agaph estin), but from a grammatical standpoint this is not a proposition in which subject and predicate nominative are interchangeable (“God is love” does not equal “love is God”). The predicate noun is anarthrous, as it is in two other Johannine formulas describing God, “God is light” in 1 John 1:5 and “God is Spirit” in John 4:24. The anarthrous predicate suggests a qualitative force, not a mere abstraction, so that a quality of God’s character is what is described here.
²¹tn Once again there is the problem of determining whether the phrase ejn touvtw/ (en toutw) refers (1) to what precedes or (2) to what follows. This is the first of 5 uses of the phrase in the present section, in 4:9, 4:10, 4:13, 4:17, and 5:2. In this case (as also in the next two instances) there is a o{ti (oti) clause following which is related and which explains (i.e., which is epexegetical to) the phrase ejn touvtw/. Thus the meaning here is, “By this the love of God is revealed in us: that God has sent his only Son into the world in order that we might live through him.”
²²tn In terms of syntax the force of the genitive tou' qeou' (tou qeou) may be (1) objective, (2) subjective, or (3) both. The phrase occurs for the first time in the letter in 2:5. Here in 4:9 the epexegetical o{ti (oti) clause which follows makes it clear that this is a subjective genitive, emphasizing God’s love for us rather than our love for God, because it describes God’s action in sending his Son into the world.
²³tn This phrase is best understood as the equivalent of a dative of sphere, but this description does not specify where the love of God is revealed with regard to believers: “in our midst” (i.e., among us) or “within us” (i.e., internally within believers). The latter is probable, because in the context the concept of God’s indwelling of the believer is mentioned in 4:12: “God resides (mevnei, menei) in us.”
²⁴sn Although the word translated one and only (monogenhv", monogenhs) is often rendered “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological bird called the Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Antiquities, 1.222) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus alone in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (tevkna qeou', tekna qeou), Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).
²⁵tn Once again there is the (by now familiar) problem of determining whether the referent of this phrase (1) precedes or (2) follows. Here there are two o{ti (oti) clauses which follow, both of which are epexegetical to the phrase ejn touvtw/ (en toutw) and explain what the love of God consists of: first, stated negatively, “not that we have loved God,” and then positively, “but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.”
²⁶tn The two o{ti (oti) clauses are epexegetical to the phrase ejn touvtw/ (en toutw) which begins the verse.
sn What is important (as far as the author is concerned) is not whether we love God (or say that we love God—a claim of the opponents is probably behind this), but that God has loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice which removes believers’ sins. This latter point is similar to the point made in 2:2 and is at the heart of the author’s dispute with the opponents, because they were denying any salvific value to Jesus’ earthly life and ministry, including his death on the cross.
²⁷sn As explained at 2:2, inherent in the meaning of the word translated atoning sacrifice (iJlasmov", Jilasmos) is the idea of turning away the divine wrath, so that “propitiation” is the closest English equivalent. God’s love for us is expressed in his sending his Son to be the propitiation (the propitiatory sacrifice) for our sins on the cross. This is an indirect way for the author to allude to one of the main points of his controversy with the opponents: the significance for believers’ salvation of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry, including especially his sacrificial death on the cross. The contemporary English “atoning sacrifice” communicates this idea more effectively.
²⁸tn Grk “and.” The Greek conjunction kaiv (kai) introduces the apodosis of the conditional sentence.
²⁹tn This is a first-class conditional sentence with eij (ei) + aorist indicative in the protasis. Reality is assumed for the sake of argument with a first-class condition.
sn The author here assumes the reality of the protasis (the “if” clause), which his recipients, as believers, would also be expected to agree with: assuming that God has loved us in this way, then it follows that we also ought to love one another. God’s act of love in sending his Son into the world to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins (v. 10) ought to motivate us as believers to love one another in a similar sacrificial fashion. The author made the same point already in 1 John 3:16. But this failure to show love for fellow believers is just what the opponents are doing: in 1 John 3:17 the author charged them with refusing to love their brothers by withholding needed material assistance. By their failure to love the brothers sacrificially according to the example Jesus set for believers, the opponents have demonstrated again the falsity of their claims to love God and know God (see 1 John 2:9).
³⁰sn An allusion to John 1:18.
³¹tn The phrase “God resides in us” (oJ qeoV" ejn hJmi'n mevnei, Jo qeo" en Jhmin menei) in 4:12 is a reference to the permanent relationship which God has with the believer. Here it refers specifically to God’s indwelling of the believer in the person of the Holy Spirit, as indicated by 4:13b. Since it refers to state and not to change of status it is here translated “resides” (see 2:6).
³²tn The phrase “his [God’s] love is perfected (teteleiwmevnh ejstivn, teteleiwmenh estin) in us” in 4:12 is difficult. First it is necessary to decide whether aujtou' (autou), which refers to God, is (1) subjective (God’s love for us) or (2) objective (our love for God). It is clear that a subjective genitive, stressing God’s love for us, is in view here, because the immediate context, 4:11a, has believers as the objects of God’s love (oJ qeoV" hjgavphsen hJma'", Jo qeo" hgaphsen Jhma"). The entire phrase hJ ajgavph aujtou' ejn hJmi'n teteleiwmevnh ejstivn (Jh agaph autou en Jhmin teteleiwmenh estin) then refers to what happens when believers love one another (note the protasis of the conditional sentence in 4:12, ejavn ajgapw'men ajllhvlou" [ean agapwmen allhlou"]). The love that comes from God, the love that he has for us, reaches perfection in our love for others, which is what God wants and what believers are commanded to do (see 3:23b).
³³tn Again whether the referent of the phrase ejn touvtw/ (en toutw) (1) precedes or (2) follows is a problem. This time there are two o{ti (oti) clauses which follow. The first is an indirect discourse clause related to ginwvskomen (ginwskomen) and giving the content of what believers know: “that we reside in him and he in us.” The second o{ti clause is epexegetical (or explanatory) to the ejn touvtw/ phrase, explaining how believers know that they reside in God and God remains in them: “in that he has given us of his Spirit.”
sn By this we know. According to the author of 1 John, the Father’s giving of the indwelling Holy Spirit to the believer is one means of providing assurance to the believer of his relationship to God. This is what was also stated in 1 John 3:24b in essentially identical terms.
³⁴tn Grk “in him.” Context indicates that the pronoun refers to God (see 4:12).
³⁵sn The genitive of his Spirit here, like the phrase in 3:24, probably reflects a partitive nuance, so that the author portrays God as ‘apportioning’ his Spirit to individual believers. This leads to the important observation that the author is not particularly interested in emphasizing (1) the ongoing interior witness of the Holy Spirit (which is what the passage is often understood to mean) but is emphasizing (2) the fact that God has given the Spirit to believers, and it is this fact that gives believers assurance of their relationship to God. In other words, it is the fact that the Holy Spirit has been given to believers, rather than the ongoing interior testimony of the Holy Spirit within the believer, which is the primary source of the believer’s assurance.
³⁶tn Because swth'ra (swthra) is the object complement of uiJovn (Juion) in a double accusative construction in 4:14, there is an understood equative verb joining the two, with the resultant meaning “the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.”
³⁷tn Grk “Whoever.”
³⁸tn Here mevnei (menei, from mevnw [menw]) is translated as “resides” because the confession is constitutive of the relationship, and the resulting state (“God resides in him”) is in view.
³⁹tn Both ejgnwvkamen (egnwkamen) and pepisteuvkamen (pepisteukamen) in 4:16 are perfect tenses, implying past actions with existing results. In this case the past action is specified as the recognition of (ejgnwvkamen) and belief in (pepisteuvkamen) “the love which God has in us.” But what is the relationship between the two verbs ginwvskw (ginwskw) and pisteuvw (pisteuw)? (1) Some interpreters would see a different nuance in each. (2) But in the Gospel of John the two verbs frequently occur together in the same context, often in the same tense; examples may be found in John 6:69, 8:31-32, 10:38, 14:7-10, and 17:8. They also occur together in one other context in 1 John, 4:1-2. Of these John 6:69, Peter’s confession, is the closest parallel to the usage here: “We have come to believe [pepisteuvkamen] and to know [ejgnwvkamen] that you are the holy One of God.” Here the order between “knowing” and “believing” is reversed from 1 John 4:16, but an examination of the other examples from the Gospel of John should make it clear that there is no difference in meaning when the order of the terms is reversed. It appears that the author considered both terms to describe a single composite action. Thus they represent a hendiadys which describes an act of faith/belief/trust on the part of the individual; knowledge (true knowledge) is an inseparable part of this act of faith.
⁴⁰tn The force of the preposition ejn (en) in the phrase ejn hJmi'n (en Jhmin) in 4:16a is disputed: although (1) “for” (in the sense of “on behalf of”) is possible and is a common English translation, the other uses of the same phrase in 4:9 (where it refers to God’s love for us) and 4:12 (where it refers to God’s indwelling of the believer) suggest that (2) the author intends to emphasize interiority here—a reference to God’s love expressed in believers. This is confirmed by the only other uses in 1 John of the verb e[cw (ecw) with the preposition ejn (3:15 and 5:10) both of which literally mean something in someone.
⁴¹tn Once again mevnw (menw) in its three occurrences in 4:16 looks at the mutual state of believers and God. No change of status or position is in view in the context, so the participle and both finite verbs are translated as “resides.”
⁴²tn The referent of ejn touvtw/ (en toutw) here is more difficult to determine than most, because while there are both i{na (ina) and o{ti (oti) clauses following, it is not clear whether or not they are related to the ejn touvtw/. There are actually three possibilities for the referent of ejn touvtw/ in 4:17: (1) it may refer to the i{na clause which immediately follows, so that the love of believers is brought to perfection in that they have confidence in the day of judgment. The main problem with this interpretation is that since the day of judgment is still future, it necessitates understanding the second use of the preposition “in” (second ejn [en]) to mean “about” or “concerning” with reference to the day of judgment in order to make logical sense. (2) The ejn touvtw/ may refer to the o{ti clause in 4:17b, meaning “love is perfected with us…in that just as he [Christ] is, so also are we in this world.” This makes logical sense, and we have seen numerous cases where ejn touvtw/ is explained by a o{ti clause that follows. However, according to this understanding the intervening i{na clause is awkward, and there is no other instance of the phrase ejn touvtw/ explained by a following o{ti clause where a i{na clause intervenes between the two in this way. (3) Thus, the third possibility is that ejn touvtw/ refers to what precedes in 4:16b, and this also would make logical sense: “By this—by our residing in love so that we reside in God and he resides in us—is love brought to perfection with us.” This has the additional advantage of agreeing precisely with what the author has already said in 4:12: “If we love one another, God remains in us and his love is brought to perfection in us.” Thus option (3) is best, with the phrase ejn touvtw/ referring to what precedes in 4:16b, and the i{na clause which follows indicates the result of this perfection of love in believers: in the future day of judgment they will have confidence. The o{ti clause would then give the reason for such confidence in the day of judgment: because just as Jesus is, so also are believers in this world—they are already currently in relationship with God just as Jesus is.
⁴³tn The preposition metav (meta) means “with” and modifies the verb teteleivwtai (teteleiwtai). If the prepositional phrase modified the noun hJ ajgavph which immediately precedes it, it would almost certainly have the Greek article, thus: hJ ajgavph hJ meq* hJmw'n (Jh agaph Jh meq’ Jhmwn).
sn To say love is perfected with us means “with regard to our actions in loving our brothers.”
⁴⁴tn Grk “that one” (a reference to Jesus is indicated in the context). Once more the author uses the pronoun ejkei'no" (ekeinos) to refer to Jesus Christ, as he did in 2:6, 3:3, 3;5, 3:7, and 3:16. A reference to Christ is confirmed in this context because the author says that “just as he is, so also are we [believers] in this world” and since 3:2 indicated that believers are to be like God in the future (but are not yet), the only one believers can be like already in the present age is Jesus Christ.
⁴⁵sn The entire phrase fear has to do with punishment may be understood in two slightly different ways: (1) “fear has its own punishment” or (2) “fear has to do with [includes] punishment.” These are not far apart, however, and the real key to understanding the expression lies in the meaning of the word “punishment” (kovlasi", kolasis). While it may refer to torture or torment (BAGD 440 s.v. 1) there are numerous Koine references involving eternal punishment (2 Macc 4:38; T. Reub 5:5; T. Gad 7:5) and this is also the use in the only other NT reference, Matt 25:46. In the present context, where the author has mentioned having confidence in the day of judgment (4:17), it seems virtually certain that eternal punishment (or fear of it) is what is meant here. The (only) alternative to perfected love, which results in confidence at the day of judgment, is fear, which has to do with the punishment one is afraid of receiving at the judgment. As 4:18b states, “the one who fears [punishment] has not been perfected in love. It is often assumed by interpreters that the opposite to perfected love (which casts out fear) is imperfect love (which still has fear and therefore no assurance). This is possible, but it is not likely, because the author nowhere mentions ‘imperfect’ love, and for him the opposite of ‘perfected’ love appears to be not imperfect love but hate (cf. 4:20). In other words, in the antithetical (‘either/or’) categories in which the author presents his arguments, one is either a genuine believer, who becomes ‘perfected’ in love as he resides in love and in a mutually indwelling relationship with God (cf. 4:16b), or one is not a genuine believer at all, but one who (like the opponents) hates his brother, is a liar, and does not know God at all. This individual should well fear judgment and eternal punishment because in the author’s view that is precisely where such a person is headed!
⁴⁶tn Grk “punishment, and the person who fears.”
⁴⁷tn “Punishment” is not repeated in the Greek text at this point but is implied.
⁴⁸sn No object is supplied for the verb love (the author with his propensity for obscurity has left it to the readers to supply the object). The obvious objects that could be supplied from the context are either God himself or other believers (the brethren). It may well be that the author has both in mind at this point; the statement is general enough to cover both alternatives, although the following verse puts more emphasis on love for the brethren.
¹tn Grk “if anyone should say…”
²tn “Yet” is supplied to bring out the contrast.
³tn Grk “brother.” Here the term “brother” means “fellow believer” or “fellow Christian” (cf. BAGD 16 s.v. ajdelfov" 2).
⁴tn Grk “brother.” See the note on the term “fellow Christian” earlier in this verse.
⁵sn In 4:20 the author again describes the opponents, who claim to love God. Their failure to show love for their fellow Christians proves their claim to know God to be false: the one who does not love his fellow Christian whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.
⁶tn The i{na (ina) clause in 4:21 could be giving (1) the purpose or (2) the result of the commandment mentioned in the first half of the verse, but if it does, the author nowhere specifies what the commandment consists of. It makes better sense to understand this i{na clause as (3) epexegetical to the pronoun tauvthn (tauthn) at the beginning of 4:21 and thus explaining what the commandment consists of: “that the one who loves God should love his brother also.”
⁷tn Grk “brother.” See the note on the first occurrence of the term “fellow Christian” in 4:20.
⁸tn Or “the Messiah.”
⁹tn The verb gennavw (gennaw) here means to be fathered by God and thus a child of God. The imagery in 1 John is that of the male parent who fathers children. See 2:29 for further discussion of this imagery.
¹⁰tc Most witnesses add kaiv (kai, “also”) before the article tovn (ton). But the external evidence for the shorter reading is significant (B Y 048^vid 33 et alii), and the conjunction looks to be a motivated reading in which scribes emulated the wording of 4:21 (ajgapa'/ kaiV tovn, agapa kai ton).
¹¹sn Also loves the child fathered by him. Is the meaning of 5:1b a general observation or a specific statement about God and Christians? There are three ways in which the second half of 5:1 has been understood: (1) as a general statement, proverbial in nature, applying to any parent: “everyone who loves the father also loves the child fathered by him.” (2) This has also been understood as a statement that is particularly true of one’s own parent: “everyone who loves his own father also loves the (other) children fathered by him (i.e., one’s own brothers and sisters).” (3) This could be understood as a statement which refers particularly to God, in light of the context (5:1a): “everyone who loves God who fathered Christians also loves the Christians who are fathered by God.” Without doubt options (2) and (3) are implications of the statement in its present context, but it seems most probable that the meaning of the statement is more general and proverbial in nature (option 1). This is likely because of the way in which it is introduced by the author with pa'" oJ (pas Jo) + participle. The author could have been more explicit and said something like, “everyone who loves God also loves God’s children” had he intended option (3) without ambiguity. Yet that, in context, is the ultimate application of the statement, because it ultimately refers to the true Christian who, because he loves God, also loves the brethren, those who are God’s offspring. This is the opposite of 4:20, where the author asserted that the opponents, who profess to love God but do not love the brethren, cannot really love God because they do not love the brethren.
¹²tn Once more there is the familiar difficulty of determining whether the phrase refers (1) to what precedes or (2) to what follows. Here, because ejn touvtw/ (en toutw) is followed by a clause introduced by o{tan (otan) which appears to be related, it is best to understand ejn touvtw/ as referring to what follows. The following o{tan clause is epexegetical to ejn touvtw/, explaining how we know that we love God’s children: “by this we know that we love God’s children, whenever we love God and keep his commandments.”
¹³tn The force of the gavr (gar) at the beginning of 5:3 is similar to another introductory formula used by the author of 1 John, kaiV au{th ejstivn (kai auth estin; used in 1:5, 5:4, 5:11, and 5:14). The gavr draws an inference based on the preceding statements, particularly the one in 5:2b, regarding the love of God. If in 5:2 loving God and keeping his commandments is the key to knowing that we love God’s children, it is important to define what the love of God involves, and this is what the author is doing in 5:3. In fact, as the following i{na (ina) clause makes clear, loving God consists in keeping his commandments
¹⁴tn Once again the genitive could be understood as (1) objective, (2) subjective, or (3) both. Here an objective sense is more likely (believers’ love for God) because in the previous verse it is clear that God is the object of believers’ love.
¹⁵tn Contrary to the punctuation of NA27 and UBS4, it is best to place a full stop (period) following thrw'men (thrwmen) in 5:3. The subordinate clause introduced by o{ti (oti) at the beginning of 5:4 is related to the second half of 5:3 which begins with kaiv (kai). Kaiv is commonly used by the author to begin a new sentence, probably by analogy with the Hebrew wa„w consecutive.
¹⁶tn The explicit reason the commandments of God are not burdensome to the believer is given by the o{ti (oti) clause at the beginning of 5:4. It is because “everyone who is begotten by God conquers the world.”
¹⁷tn We might have expected the masculine here rather than the neuter pa'n toV gegennhmevnon ejk tou' qeou' (pan to gegennhmenon ek tou qeou) to refer to the person who is fathered by God. However, BDF §138.1 explains that “the neuter is sometimes used with respect to persons if it is not the individuals but a generic quality that is to be emphasized”; this seems to be the case here, where a collective aspect is in view: as a group, all those who have been begotten by God, that is, all true believers, overcome the world.
¹⁸sn The author is once more looking at the situation antithetically (in ‘either/or’ terms) as he sees the readers on the one hand as true believers (everyone who is fathered by God) who have overcome the world through their faith, and the opponents on the other as those who have claimed to have a relationship with God but really do not; they belong to the world in spite of their claims.
¹⁹tn Or “overcomes.”
²⁰sn Conquers the world. Once again, the author’s language is far from clear at this point, and so is his meaning, but the author has used the verb conquers (nikavw, nikaw) previously to describe the believer’s victory over the enemy, the evil one himself, in 2:13-14, and over the secessionist opponents, described as “false prophets” in 4:4. This suggests that what the author has in mind here is a victory over the opponents, who now belong to the world and speak its language (cf. 4:5). In the face of the opponents’ attempts through their false teaching to confuse the readers (true believers) about who it is they are supposed to love, the author assures the readers that loving God and keeping his commandments assures us that we really do love God’s children, and because we have already achieved victory over the world through our faith, keeping God’s commandments is not a difficult matter.
²¹tn Grk “And this.”
²²tn The standard English translation for hJ nivkh (Jh nikh) is “victory” (BAGD 539 s.v.) but this does not preserve the relationship with the cognate verb nikavw (nikaw; used in 2:13,14 and present in this context in participial form in 5:4b and 5:5). One alternative would be “conquest,” although R. Brown (Epistles of John, 570) suggests “conquering power” as a translation for hJ nivkh since here it is a metonymy for the means of victory or the power that gives victory, referring to believers’ faith.
²³tn The use of the aorist participle (hJ nikhvsasa, Jh nikhsasa) to refer to faith as the conquering power that “has conquered the world” in 5:4b is problematic. Debate here centers over the temporal value of the aorist participle: (1) It may indicate an action contemporaneous with the (present tense) main verb, in which case the alternation between aorist participle in 5:4b and present participle in 5:5 is one more example of the author’s love of stylistic variation with no difference in meaning. (2) Nevertheless, an aorist participle with a present tense main verb would normally indicate an action antecedent to that of the main verb, so that the aorist participle would describe a past action. That is the most probable here. Thus the aorist participle stresses that the conquest of the world is something that has already been accomplished.
²⁴tn After a verb of perception (the participle oJ pisteuvwn [Jo pisteuwn]) the o{ti (Joti) in 5:5 introduces indirect discourse, a declarative or recitative clause giving the content of what the person named by the participle (oJ pisteuvwn) believes: “that Jesus is the Son of God.” As in 4:15, such a confession constitutes a problem for the author’s opponents but not for his readers who are genuine believers.
²⁵tn This o{ti (oti) is best understood (1) as causal. Some have taken it (2) as declarative, giving the content of the Spirit’s testimony: “and the Spirit is the One who testifies that the Spirit is the truth.” This is certainly possible, since a o{ti clause following the cognate verb marturevw (marturevw) often gives the content of the testimony (cf. John 1:34, 3:28, 4:39, 4:44). But in the Gospel of John the Spirit never bears witness on his own behalf, but always on behalf of Jesus (John 15:26, 16:13). There are, in fact, some instances in the Gospel of John where a o{ti clause following marturevw is causal (8:14, 15:27), and that is more likely here: “and the Spirit is the One who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.”
²⁶tn A second causal o{ti (oti) clause (after the one at the end of the preceding verse) is somewhat awkward, especially since the reasons offered in each are somewhat different. The content of the second o{ti clause (the one in question here) goes somewhat beyond the content of the first. The first o{ti clause, the one at the end of 5:6, stated the reason why the Spirit is the witness: because the Spirit is the truth. The second o{ti clause, here, states that there are three witnesses, of which the Spirit is one. It is probably best, therefore, to understand this second o{ti as indicating a somewhat looser connection than the first, not strictly causal but inferential in sense (the English translation “for” captures this inferential sense). See BDF §456.1 for a discussion of this ‘looser’ use of o{ti.
²⁷tc Before toV pneu'ma kaiV toV u{dwr kaiV toV ai|ma (to pneuma kai to {udwr kai to |aima), the Textus Receptus reads ejn tw'/ oujranw'/, oJ pathvr, oJ lovgo", kaiV toV a{gion pneu'ma, kaiV ou|toi oiJ trei'" e{n eijsi. 5:8 kaiV trei'" eijsin oiJ marturou'nte" ejn th'/ gh'/ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johannaeum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 2nd ed., 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500’s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1517. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever manuscripts he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings—even in places where the TR/Byzantine manuscripts lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek manuscripts and yet goes back to the original text? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.
²⁸tn This o{ti (oti) almost certainly introduces a causal clause, giving the reason why the “testimony of God” is greater than the “testimony of men”: “because this is God’s testimony that he has testified concerning his Son.”
²⁹tn The problem with au{th (auth) in 5:9 lies in determining whether it refers (1) to what precedes or (2) to what follows. A few interpreters would see this as referring to the preceding verses (5:7-8), but the analogy with the author’s other uses of au{th (1:5, 3:11, 3:23) suggests a reference to what follows. In all of the other instances of au{th ejstin ({auth estin, 1:5, 3:11, 3:23) the phrase is followed by an epexegetical (explanatory) clause giving the referent (o{ti [oti] in 1:5, i{na [ina] in 3:11 and 3:23). The o{ti clause which follows the au{th in 5:9 does not explain the testimony, but should be understood as an adjectival relative clause which qualifies the testimony further. The o{ti clause which explains the testimony of 5:9 (to which the au{th in 5:9 refers) is found in 5:11, where the phrase au{th ejstin is repeated. Thus the second use of au{th ejstin in 5:11 is resumptive, and the o{ti clause which follows the au{th in 5:11 is the epexegetical (explanatory) clause which explains both it and the au{th in 5:9 which it resumes.
³⁰tn The second o{ti (oti) in 5:9 may be understood in three different ways. (1) It may be causal, in which case it gives the reason why the testimony just mentioned is God’s testimony: “because he has testified concerning his Son.” This is extremely awkward because of the preceding o{ti clause which is almost certainly causal (although the second o{ti could perhaps be resumptive in force, continuing the first). (2) The second o{ti could be understood as epexegetical (explanatory), in which case it explains what the testimony of God mentioned in the preceding clause consists of: “because this is the testimony of God, [namely,] that he has testified concerning his Son.” This is much smoother grammatically, but encounters the logical problem that “the testimony of God” is defined in 5:11 (“And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life”) and the two definitions of what the testimony of God consists of are not identical (some would say that they are not even close). Thus (3) the smoothest way to understand the second o{ti logically is to read it as a relative pronoun: “because this is the testimony of God that he has testified concerning his Son.” In this case it is exactly parallel to the relative clause which occurs in 5:10b: “because he has not believed the testimony that (h}n, hn) God has testified concerning his Son.” (There is in fact a textual problem with the second o{ti in 5:9: the Byzantine tradition, along with manuscript P, reads a relative pronoun [h}n] in place of the second o{ti in 5:9 identical to the relative pronoun in 5:10b. This represents an obvious effort on the part of scribes to smooth out the reading of the text.) In an effort to derive a similar sense from the second o{ti in 5:9 it has been suggested that the conjunction o{ti should be read as an indefinite relative pronoun o{ti (sometimes written o{ ti). The problem with this suggestion is the use of the neuter relative pronoun to refer to a feminine antecedent (hJ marturiva, Jh marturia). It is not without precedent for a neuter relative pronoun to refer to an antecedent of differing gender, especially as some forms tended to become fixed in usage and were used without regard to agreement. But in this particular context it is difficult to see why the author would use a neuter indefinite relative pronoun here in 5:9b and then use the normal feminine relative pronoun (h}n) in the next verse. (Perhaps this strains at the limits of even the notorious Johannine preference for stylistic variation, although it is impossible to say what the author might or might not have been capable of doing.) Because of the simplicity and logical smoothness which results from reading o{ti as equivalent to a relative pronoun, the third option is preferred, although it is not without its difficulties (as are all three options).
³¹sn This verse is a parenthesis in John’s argument.
³²tn The o{ti (oti) clause in 5:11 is epexegetical (explanatory) to the phrase kaiV au{th ejstivn (kai auth estin) at the beginning of the verse and gives the content of the testimony for the first time: “And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.”
³³sn In understanding how “God’s testimony” (added to the three witnesses of 5:8) can consist of eternal life it is important to remember the debate between the author and the opponents. It is not the reality of eternal life (whether it exists at all or not) that is being debated here, but rather which side in the debate (the author and his readers or the opponents) possesses it (this is a key point!). The letter began with a testimony that “the eternal life” has been revealed (1:2), and it is consummated here with the reception or acknowledgment of that eternal life as the final testimony. This testimony (which is God’s testimony) consists in eternal life itself, which the author and the readers possess, but the opponents do not. This, for the author, constitutes the final apologetic in his case against the opponents.
³⁴sn The one who has the Son. The expression “to have the Son” in 5:12 means to “possess” him in the sense that he is present in the individual’s life (see 1 John 2:23 for the use of the Greek verb “to have” to indicate possession of a divine reality). From the parallel statement in 5:10a it is clear that believing in the Son and thus having God’s testimony in one’s self is the same as “having” the Son here in 5:12a. This is essentially identical to John 3:16: “that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” In contrast, the negative statement in 5:12b reflects the author’s evaluation of the opponents: “the one who does not have the Son does not have (eternal) life.” The opponents, in spite of their claims to know God, do not possess (nor have they at any time possessed, cf. 2:19) eternal life.
³⁵tn “This” is a translation of the Greek anaphoric article.
³⁶tn The word “eternal” is not in the Greek text but is supplied for clarity, since the anaphoric article in Greek points back to the previous mention of eternal life in 5:11.
³⁷tn “This” is a translation of the Greek anaphoric article.
³⁸tn The word “eternal” is not in the Greek text but is supplied for clarity, since the anaphoric article in Greek points back to the previous mention of eternal life in 5:11.
³⁹tn Theoretically the pronoun tau'ta (tauta) could refer (1) to what precedes or (2) to what follows. Since it is followed by a i{na (ina) clause which gives the purpose for the writing, and a new subject is introduced in 5:14 (hJ parrhsiva, Jh parrhsia), it seems almost certain that the tau'ta in 5:13 refers to preceding material. Even at this, some would limit the referent of tau'ta (1) only to 5:1-12 or even 5:12, but more likely tau'ta in 5:13 refers (2) to the entirety of the letter, for two reasons: (a) based on the structural analogy with the Gospel of John, where the conclusion refers to all that has preceded, it is probable that the conclusion to 1 John refers likewise to all that has preceded; and (b) the statement tau'ta e[graya uJmi'n (tauta egraya Jumin) in 5:13 forms an inclusion with the statement kaiV tau'ta gravfomen hJmei'" (kai tauta grafomen Jhmei") at the end of the prologue (1:4) and encompasses the entire body of the letter.
⁴⁰tn The dative participle pisteuvousin (pisteuousin) in 5:13 is in simple apposition to the indirect object of e[graya (egraya), uJmi'n (Jumin), and could be translated, “These things I have written to you, namely, to the ones who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know.” There is an exact parallel to this structure in John 1:12, where the pronoun is aujtoi'" (autois) and the participle is toi'" pisteuvousin (toi" pisteuousin) as here.
⁴¹tn This i{na (ina) introduces a clause giving the author’s purpose for writing “these things” (tau'ta, tauta), which refers to the entirety of the preceding material. The two other Johannine statements about writing, 1 John 1:4 and John 20:31, are both followed by purpose clauses introduced by i{na, as here.
⁴²tn For the third time in 5:9-14 the author uses the construction au{th ejstivn ({auth estin; 5:9, 5:11, 5:14). As in the previous instance (5:11) the o{ti (oti) clause which follows is epexegetical (explanatory) to the pronoun au{th and explains what the “confidence” (parrhsiva, parrhsia) consists of (technically the subject is hJ parrhsiva, the predicate nominative is the pronoun au{th, and the o{ti clause explains the predicate nominative): “And the confidence which we have before him is this, namely, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us.”
⁴³tn A third-class condition is introduced by ejavn (ean) + present subjunctive. Because the apodosis also contains a present tense verb (ajkouvei, akouei) this belongs in a subcategory of third-class conditional sentences known as present general. In the Koine period ejavn can mean “when” or “whenever” and is virtually the equivalent of o{tan (otan; see BAGD 211 s.v. ejavn I.1.d). Thus the meaning here is, “whenever (i.e., if) we ask anything according to his will, then he hears us.”
⁴⁴tn This use of ejavn (ean) with the indicative mood rather than the subjunctive constitutes an anomalous usage. Here ejavn is used instead of eji (ei) to introduce a first-class condition: “if we know (oi[damen, oidamen) that he hears us in regard to whatever we ask, then we know that we have the requests which we have asked from him.” The reality of the condition (protasis) is assumed for the sake of argument; given the protasis, the apodosis follows. The use of ejavn for eji is rare but not without precedent; see M. Zerwick (Biblical Greek, 112, §§330-31).
⁴⁵tn Again ejavn (ean) in 5:16 introduces (as in 5:14) a third-class condition, but this time, with the future indicative (aijthvsei, aithsei) in the apodosis, the condition is known as “more probable future.” As BDF §371.4 points out, such a condition describes what is to be expected under certain circumstances. If a person sees his Christian brother committing a sin not to death, it is expected that he will make intercession for the sinning brother (“he should ask…”), and that life will be granted to the sinner in answer to the request. The author has already pointed out in 5:14-15 that if believers make requests of God in accordance with his will they may have confidence that they will receive the requests they have asked for, and this is a specific instance.
⁴⁶tn Grk “brother.” Here the term “brother” means “fellow believer” or “fellow Christian” (cf. BAGD 16 s.v. ajdelfov" 2).
⁴⁷tn Grk “a sin not to death.”
⁴⁸tn Grk “he” (see the note on the word “grant” later in this verse for discussion).
⁴⁹tn The referent of the (understood) third person subject of dwvsei (dwsei) in 5:16 is difficult to determine. Once again the author’s meaning is obscure. Several possibilities have been suggested for the referent of the subject of this verb: (1) From a grammatical and syntactical standpoint, it would be easiest to understand the subject of dwvsei in 5:16 as the person who makes the request, since this person is the subject of the preceding verb aijthvsei (aithsei) and the following verb ejrwthvsh/ (erwthsh). From a theological standpoint this is extremely difficult, however, since it would make the person who prays for the sinner the giver of life, and it is questionable whether the author (for whom God is the ultimate source of life) would say that one believer could ‘give’ life to another. In this case the meaning would be: “he [the petitioner] should ask, and he [the petitioner] will grant life to him [the sinner], namely, to those who sin not to death.” (2) Another option is to see God as the subject of dwvsei in 5:16 and the Giver of life to the sinner. This is far more consistent theologically with the author’s perspective on God as the Giver of life everywhere else, but it is awkward grammatically (as explained in reference to the previous position above) because it involves a shift in subjects for the three third-person verbs in the context from the person who makes the request (aijthvsei) to God (dwvsei) and back to the person who makes the request (ejrwthvsh/). In this case the meaning would be: “he [the petitioner] should ask, and he [God] will grant life to him [the sinner], namely, to those who sin not to death.” (3) A third possibility is to see God as the subject of dwvsei in 5:16, but the person who makes the request (rather than the sinner) as the referent of the indirect object aujtw'/ (autw) in 5:16. This is possible because the indirect object aujtw'/ is singular, while the dative substantival participle toi'" aJmartavnousin (toi" Jamartanousin) which follows (which clearly refers to those who sin) is plural. Thus the meaning would be: “he [the petitioner] should ask, and he [God] will grant life to him [the petitioner], with reference to [his praying for] those who sin not to death.” Although this is a difficult and awkward construction no matter what solution one takes, on the whole the second alternative seems most probable. Even if option (1) is preferred it must be acknowledged that God is ultimately the source of life, although it is given as a result of the petitioner’s intercessory prayer and the petitioner becomes, in a sense, the intermediate agent. But in the preceding context (5:11) the author has emphasized that God is the Giver of life, and in spite of the awkwardness in the change of subjects, that would seem to be the most likely meaning here, so option (2) is preferred. Option (3) is improbable because it seems clear that it should be the sinner for whom intercession is made, rather than the petitioner, who is the recipient of life. The petitioner would be assumed to possess life already or he could not be making a request which God would hear. In this case the change from the singular dative indirect object (aujtw'/) to the plural dative substantival participle (toi'" aJmartavnousin) is merely a loose construction (which by this time should come as no surprise from the author!).
⁵⁰tn Grk “a sin not to death.”
⁵¹tn Grk “a sin not to death.”
⁵²tn The meaning of ajdikiva (adikia) here is “unrighteousness” (BAGD 18 s.v. 2). It refers to the opposite of that which is divkaio" (dikaios, “right, just, righteous”) which is used by our author to describe both God and Jesus Christ (1 John 1:9, 2:2, 2:29). Here, having implied that sins committed by believers (sins “not to death”) may be prayed for and forgiven, the author does not want to leave the impression that such sin is insignificant, because this could be viewed as a concession to the views of the opponents (who as moral indifferentists have downplayed the significance of sin in the Christian’s life).
⁵³tn Grk “a sin not to death.”
⁵⁴tn The concept represented by the verb gennavw (gennaw) here means to be fathered by God and thus a child of God. The imagery in 1 John is that of the male parent who fathers children (see 2:29).
⁵⁵tn Grk “he”; see the note on the following word “protects.”
⁵⁶tn The meaning of the phrase oJ gennhqeiV" ejk tou' qeou' threi' aujtovn (Jo gennhqeis ek tou qeou threi auton) in 5:18 is extraordinarily difficult. Again the author’s capacity for making obscure statements results in several possible meanings for this phrase: (1) “The fathering by God protects him [the Christian].” Here a textual variant for oJ gennhqeiv" (hJ gevnnhsi", Jh gennhsi") has suggested to some that the passive participle should be understood as a noun (“fathering” or perhaps “birth”), but the manuscript evidence is extremely slight (1505 1852 2138 2495 and a few of the versions). This almost certainly represents a scribal attempt to clarify an obscure phrase. (2) “The One fathered by God [Jesus] protects him [the Christian].” This is a popular interpretation, and is certainly possible grammatically. Yet the introduction of a reference to Jesus in this context is sudden; to be unambiguous the author could have mentioned the “Son of God” here, or used the pronoun ejkei'no" (ekeinos) as a reference to Jesus as he consistently does elsewhere in 1 John. This interpretation, while possible, seems in context highly unlikely. (3) “The one fathered by God [the Christian] protects himself.” Again a textual problem is behind this alternative, since a number of manuscripts (Í K P Y 33 88 181 1739 Byz al) supply the reflexive pronoun eJautovn (Jeauton) in place of aujtovn in 5:18. On the basis of the external evidence this has a good possibility of being the original reading, but internal evidence favors aujtovn as the more difficult reading, since eJautovn may be explained as a scribal attempt at grammatical smoothness. From a logical standpoint, however, it is difficult to make much more sense out of eJautovn; to say what “the Christian protects himself” means in the context is far from clear. (4) “The one fathered by God [the Christian] holds on to him [God].” This results in further awkwardness, because the third person pronoun (aujtou', autou) in the following clause must refer to the Christian, not God. Furthermore, although threvw (threw) can mean “hold on to” (BAGD 815 s.v. 3), this is not a common meaning for the verb in Johannine usage, occurring elsewhere only in Rev 3:3. (5) “The one fathered by God [the Christian], he [God] protects him [the Christian].” This involves a pendant nominative construction (oJ gennhqeiV" ejk tou' qeou') where a description of something within the clause is placed in the nominative case and moved forward ahead of the clause for emphatic reasons. This may be influenced by Semitic style; such a construction is also present in John 17:2 (in order that everyone whom You have given to him, he may give to them eternal life”). This view is defended by K. Beyer (Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1962], 1.216ff.) and appears to be the most probable in terms both of syntax and of sense. It makes God the protector of the Christian (rather than the Christian himself), which fits the context much better, and there is precedent in Johannine literature for such syntactical structure.
⁵⁷tn The preposition ejk (ek) here indicates both source and possession: Christians are “from” God in the sense that they are begotten by him, and they belong to him. For a similar use of the preposition compare the phrases ejk tou' patrov" (ek tou patro") and ejk tou' kovsmou (ek tou kosmou) in 1 John 2:16.
⁵⁸tc After i{na (ina), a subjunctive is required by the rules of syntax. In a few places in the NT (principally in the Johannine corpus, especially Revelation), however, an indicative verb is found. Found as it is in the Alexandrian manuscripts, whose scribes were purportedly sensitive to literary Koine syntax, the indicative reading has all the earmarks of being original. In virtually every instance, the Byzantine manuscripts change such an indicative to the subjunctive (here, the change is from ginwvskomen [ginwskomen] to ginwvskwmen [ginwskwmen]). The indicative is thus a harder reading and unmotivated in the witnesses in which it is found. It best explains the rise of the other reading. In this text, the external evidence for the indicative is overwhelming and ought to be followed: Í A B* L P 049 33 81 614 et alii.
tn The i{na (ina) introduces a purpose clause which gives the purpose of the preceding affirmation: “we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight (so that we may) know him who is true.”
⁵⁹sn The pronoun This one (ou|to", outos) refers to a person, but it is far from clear whether it should be understood as a reference (1) to God the Father or (2) to Jesus Christ. R. Brown (Epistles of John, 625) comments, “I John, which began with an example of stunning grammatical obscurity in the prologue, continues to the end to offer us examples of unclear grammar.” The nearest previous antecedent is Jesus Christ, immediately preceding, but on some occasions when this has been true the pronoun still refers to God (see 1 John 2:3). The first predicate which follows This one in 5:20, the true God, is a description of God the Father used by Jesus in John 17:3, and was used in the preceding clause of the present verse to refer to God the Father (him who is true). Yet the second predicate of This one in 5:20, eternal life, appears to refer to Jesus, because although the Father possesses “life” (John 5:26, 6:57) just as Jesus does (John 1:4, 6:57, 1 John 5:11), “life” is never predicated of the Father elsewhere, while it is predicated of Jesus in John 11:25 and 14:6 (a self-predication by Jesus). If we do understand This one in 5:20 as referring to Jesus, it forms an inclusion with the prologue, which introduced the reader to “the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us.” Thus it appears best to understand the pronoun This one in 5:20 as a reference to Jesus Christ. The Christological affirmation which results is striking, but certainly not beyond the capabilities of the author (see John 1:1 and 20:28): This One [Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life.
⁶⁰sn The modern reader may wonder what all this has to do with idolatry. In the author’s mind, to follow the secessionist opponents with their false Christology would amount to idolatry, since it would involve worshiping a false god instead of the true God, Jesus Christ. Thus guard yourselves from idols means for the readers to guard themselves against the opponents and their teaching.