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 ἀγγελία ( angelia ) and the verb ἀναγγέλλομεν ( anangellomen ), cognate to the verb in 1:3 . The content of this proclamation is given by the ὅτι ( Joti ) clause in 1:5 as the assertion that God is light, so this statement should be understood as the author’s formulation of the apostolic eyewitness testimony introduced in the prologue. (This corresponds to the apostolic preaching elsewhere referred to as κήρυγμα [ khrugma ], although the term the Apostle John uses here is ἀγγελία .) 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, 8, 10 ) and the three counterclaims begin with “but if” ( 1:7, 9; 2:1 ).


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 ( εἴπωμεν , eipwmen ) that he has fellowship with God, and yet continues walking ( περιπατῶμεν , peripatwmen ) in the darkness, then it follows (in the apodosis, the “then” clause) that he is lying and not practicing the truth.


Or “living according to…”


Or “purifies.”


BDAG 50 s.v. ἁμαρτία 1 defines this term as “a departure fr. either human or divine standards of uprightness” (see 1 John 5:17 where ἁμαρτία [ Jamartia ] and ἀδικία [ 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 preconversion 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.


Grk “say we do not have sin.” The use of ἔχω + ἁμαρτία ( ecw + Jamartia ) is an expression limited to John and 1 John in the NT. On the analogy with other constructions where ἔχω governs an abstract noun (e.g., 1 John 1:3, 6, 7; 2:28; 3:3, 15, 21; 4:16, 17; 5:12-13 ), it indicates that a state is involved, which in the case of ἁμαρτία would refer to a state of sin . The four times the expression ἔχω + ἁμαρτία occurs in the Gospel of John (9:41; 15:22, 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).


Or “just.”


The ἵνα ( Jina ) followed by the subjunctive is here equivalent to the infinitive of result, an “ecbatic” or consecutive use of ἵνα according to BDAG 477 s.v. 3 where 1 John 1:9 is listed as a specific example. The translation with participles (“forgiving, …cleansing”) conveys this idea of result.


Or “purifying.”


There is some dispute over the significance of the aorist tense of ἁμάρτητε ( 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 §251) and N. Turner (MHT 3:72) agree that the present tense of ἁμαρτάνω ( 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.”


The description of the Holy Spirit as “Paraclete” is unique to the Gospel of John (14:16, 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 παράκλητος ( paraklhto" ). The reader 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 ( ἄλλος , 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 an advocate during his earthly ministry which is in view, but his role as an advocate in heaven before the Father. The context suggests intercession in the sense of legal advocacy, as stress is placed upon the righteousness of Jesus ( ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον , 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.


Or “Jesus Christ the righteous.”


A suitable English translation for this word ( ἱλασμός , 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 , 140), sees as an integral part of the meaning of the word (as in the other words in the ἱλάσκομαι [ 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. E. Brown’s point ( Epistles of John [AB], 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 ( ἱλασμός , Jilasmos ) behind the phrase atoning sacrifice conveys both the idea of “turning aside divine wrath” and the idea of “cleansing from sin.”


Many translations supply an understood repetition of the word “sins” here, thus: “but also for the sins of the whole world.”


The translation of καί ( kai ) at the beginning of 2:3 is important for understanding the argument, because a similar καί occurs at the beginning of 1:5 . The use here is not just a simple continuative or connective use, 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 counterclaims 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.


Grk “know him.” (1) Many take the third person pronoun αὐτον ( auton ) to refer to Jesus Christ, since he is mentioned in 2:1 and the pronoun αὐτός ( 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 ἐκεῖνος ( ekeinos ) is used to distinguish this from previous references with αὐτός ; (c) the καί ( kai ) which begins 2:3 is parallel to the καί 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.


Grk “know him.” See the note on the phrase “know God” in 1 John 2:3 for explanation.


The referent of this pronoun is probably to be understood as God, since God is the nearest previous antecedent.


Grk “in him.”


The Greek verb μένω ( 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 μένω 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 μένω 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 μένω ( 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).


Grk “in him.” Context indicates a reference to God since a different pronoun, ἐκεινος ( ekeinos ), is used later in the same verse to indicate a reference to Jesus. See the note on “Jesus” later in this verse.


That is, ought to behave in the same way Jesus did. “Walking” is a common NT idiom for one’s behavior or conduct.


Grk “that one.” Context indicates a reference to Jesus here. It is clear that ἐκεῖνος ( ekeinos ) here does not refer to the same person as αὐτῷ ( autw ) in 2:6 a. The switch to ἐκεῖνος indicates a change in the referent, and a reference to Jesus Christ is confirmed by the verb περιεπάτησεν ( 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, ἐκεῖνος occurs 6 times in 1 John ( 2:6; 3:3, 5, 7, 16; and 4:17 ), and each one refers to Jesus Christ.


“Already” is not is the Greek text, but is supplied for clarity.


“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.


The clause beginning with ὅτι ( Joti ) is often taken as (1) epexegetical or (2) appositional to the commandment ( ἐντολήν , entolhn ) giving a further explanation or clarification of it. But the statement following the ὅτι 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 ὅτι 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. E. Brown ( Epistles of John [AB], 268) thinks it refers to both.


Grk “the one saying he is in the light and hating his brother.” Here καί ( kai ) has been translated as “but” because of the contrast present in the two clauses.


Grk “his brother.” Here the term “brother” means “fellow believer” or “fellow Christian” (cf. BDAG 18 s.v. ἀδελφός 2.a). In the repeated uses of this form of address throughout the letter, it is important to remember that sometimes it refers (1) to genuine Christians (those who have remained faithful to the apostolic eyewitness testimony about who Jesus is, as outlined in the Prologue to the letter, 1:1-4 ; an example of this usage is 2:10; 3:14, 16 ), but often it refers (2) to the secessionist opponents whose views the author rejects (examples are found here at 2:9 , as well as 2:11; 3:10; 3:15; 3:17; 4:20 ). Of course, to be technically accurate, in the latter case the reference is really to a “fellow member of the community”; the use of the term “fellow Christian” in the translation no more implies that such an individual is genuinely saved than the literal term “brother” which the author uses for such people. But a translation like “fellow member of the community” or “fellow member of the congregation” is extremely awkward and simply cannot be employed consistently throughout.


See note on the term “fellow Christian” in 2:9 .


The third person pronoun αὐτῷ ( 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 , which says that the person who loves God’s law does not stumble, expresses a similar concept in relation to an individual. This evidence suggests that the person is the referent here.


The ὅτι ( Joti ) that follows all six occurrences of γράφω / ἔγραψα ( 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 ὅτι gives the reason why the author is writing to the recipients. Usage in similar constructions is not decisive because only one other instance of γράφω followed by ὅτι occurs in 1 John ( 2:21 ), and that context is just as ambiguous as this one. On other occasions γράφω 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 ὅτι clause could still be causal. Grammatical considerations aside, these uses of ὅτι are more likely introducing content clauses here rather than causal clauses because such a meaning better fits the context. If the uses of ὅτι 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 ὅτι 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 ὅτι clauses as content clauses fits very well the context of reassurance which runs throughout the letter.


“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.


See the note on “that” in v. 12 .


editions of the Greek text. Some English translations, however, break the verses between the sentence addressed to children and the sentence addressed to fathers (KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV). The same material has been translated in each case; the only difference is the versification of that material.


The genitive βίου ( biou ) is difficult to translate: (1) Many understand it as objective, so that βίος ( bios , “material life”) becomes the object of one’s ἀλαζονεία ( 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 lifestyle. (2) It is also possible to understand the genitive as subjective, however, in which case the βίος itself produces the ἀλαζονεία . In this case, the material security of one’s life and possessions produces a boastful overconfidence. This understanding better fits the context here: The focus is on 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).


See note on the translation of the Greek verb μένω ( menw ) in 2:6 . The translation “remain” is used for μένω ( 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.


See note on the translation of the Greek verb μένω ( menw ) in 2:6 . Here μένω has been 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”).


Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.


The phrase “they went out from us” is not repeated a second time in the Greek text, but constitutes an ellipsis. For clarity it is necessary to repeat it in the English translation.


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.


πάντες ( pantes , nominative plural in “you all know”) is read by א B P Ψ sa. A C 049 33 1739 Ï latt sy bo have the accusative πάντα ( 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, especially because of 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 R. E. Brown points out, “the fact of their knowledge ( pantes ), not the extent of its object ( panta ), seems best to fit the reassurance” ( Epistles of John [AB], 349). Brown further points out the connection with the new covenant in with this section of 1 John, esp. Jer 31:34 – “they all [ pantes ] shall know me.” Since 1 John alludes to , 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. sn The statement you all know probably constitutes an indirect allusion to the provisions of the new covenant mentioned in (see especially Jer 31:34 ). See also R. E. Brown, The Epistles of John [AB], 349.


The interpretation of the three ὅτι clauses in v. 21 is very difficult: (1) All three instances of ὅτι ( Joti ) may be causal (so NASB, NIV, NEB). (2) The first two may be causal while the third indicates content (declarative or recitative ὅτι , 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 ἔγραψα ( egraya ) as compound direct objects. The author writes to reassure his readers (a) that they do indeed know the truth (first two uses of ὅτι ) and (b) that no lie is of the truth (third use).


See the note on the first occurrence of “that” in v. 21 .


Or “the Messiah”


The Byzantine text, almost alone, lacks the last eight words of this verse, “The person who confesses the Son has the Father also” ( ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει , 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 τὸν πατέρα ἔχει of the preceding clause occasioned the haplography, with the scribe’s eye skipping from one τὸν πατέρα ἔχει 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.)


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 μένω ( 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 .


It is difficult to know whether the phrase καὶ αὕτη ἐστιν ( kai Jauth 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 καί ( kai ) has been translated “now” rather than “and.” The accusative phrase at the end of v. 25 , τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον ( thn zwhn thn aiwnion ), stands in apposition to the relative pronoun ἥν ( Jhn ), whose antecedent is ἡ ἐπαγγελία ( Jh epangelia ; see BDF §295). Thus the “promise” consists of “eternal life.”


The pronoun could refer to God or Jesus Christ, but a reference to Jesus Christ is more likely here.


Grk “he himself promised.” The repetition of the cognate verb “promised” after the noun “promise” is redundant in English.


This use of μένω ( menw ) has been translated “reside” both times in 2:27 because it refers to the current status of believers.


Grk “and is not a lie, and just as.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.


Or “he.”


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).


Again, as at the end of 2:27 , the verb μένετε ( menete ) may be read as either (1) indicative or (2) imperative mood. At the end of 2:27 the translation 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 μένετε in the present verse should be read as imperative rather than indicative, a view made even more probable by the following ἵνα ( Jina ) 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.


In this context ἐάν ( 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 ἐάν could mean “when” or “whenever” and was virtually the equivalent of ὅταν ( {otan ; see BDAG 268 s.v. ἐάν 2). It has this meaning in John 12:32 and 14:3 .


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.


The mood of γινώσκετε ( 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, 5, 20, 21; 3:16, 19, 24; 4:2, 13; 5:2 ) rather than something one has to be exhorted about. The change in verbs from οἶδα ( oida ) to γινώσκω ( ginwskw ) is another example of Johannine stylistic variation.


The verb γεννάω ( gennaw ) presents a translation problem: (1) should the passive be translated archaically “be begotten” (the action of the male parent; see BDAG 193 s.v. 1 .a) or (2) should it be translated “be born” (as from a female parent; see BDAG 194 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.


The ἵνα ( Jina ) clause is best understood (1) as epexegetical (or explanatory), clarifying the love ( ἀγάπην , agaphn ) that the Father has given to believers. Although it is possible (2) to regard the ἵνα as indicating result, the use of ποταπήν ( potaphn , “what sort of”) to modify ἀγάπην suggests that the idea of “love” will be qualified further in the following context, and this qualification is provided by the epexegetical ἵνα clause.


“Indeed” is not in the Greek text but is supplied to indicate emphasis.


The phrase καὶ ἐσμεν ( kai esmen , “and we are”) is omitted in 049 69 Ï . 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 ( κληθῶμεν , klhqwmen , “we should be called”) ends in - μεν ( -men ). tn The indicative mood indicates that the verb ἐσμέν ( esmen ) at the end of 3:1 a is not governed by the ἵνα ( Jina ) and does not belong with the ἵνα clause, since this would have required a subjunctive. If the verb ἐσμέν were subjunctive, the force of the clause would be “that we should be called children of God, and be (children of God).” With ἐσμέν as indicative, the clause reads “that we should be called children of God, and indeed we are (children of God).”


Lexically it is clear that this phrase indicates reason, but what is not clear is whether (1) τοῦτο ( touto ) refers to what follows, (2) to what precedes, or (3) to both (as with the ἐν τοῦτο [ en touto ] phrases throughout 1 John). Διὰ τοῦτο ( 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, 18; 8:47; 10:17; 12:18, 39 ) the phrase refers to what follows, and in each of these instances an epexegetical ὅτι ( Joti ) 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 ὅτι clause. The phrase διὰ τοῦτο is used three times in the Johannine Epistles. In two of these ( 1 John 4:5 , 3 John 10 ) there is no ὅτι clause following, and so the διὰ τοῦτο should refer to preceding material. Here in 3:1 there is an epexegetical ὅτι clause following, so the διὰ τοῦτο should (unless it is the only exception in the Gospel of John and the Johannine Epistles) refer to what follows, that is, to the ὅτι clause itself. This is indicated by the colon in the translation.


The subject of the third person singular passive verb ἐφανερώθη ( efanerwqh ) in 3:2 is the following clause τί ἐσόμεθα ( 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.


The Byzantine text, the Syriac Peshitta, the Bohairic Coptic, and one ms of the Sahidic Coptic supply δέ ( de ) after οἴδαμεν ( oidamen ) in 3:2 b. Additions of coordinating conjunctions such as δέ are predictable variants; this coupled with the poor external credentials suggests that this addition is not likely to be original. tn The relationship of 3:2 b to 3:2 a 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 mss of the Sahidic Coptic supply δέ ( de ) after οἴδαμεν ( oidamen ) in 3:2 b. This addition is not likely to be original, but it does reflect a tendency among scribes to see an adversative (contrastive) relationship between 3:2 a and 3:2 b. 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.”


The first ὅτι ( Joti ) in 3:2 follows οἴδαμεν ( 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.”


In this context ἐάν ( 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 ἐάν can mean “when” or “whenever” and is virtually the equivalent of ὅταν ( Jotan ; see BDAG 268 s.v. ἐάν 2). 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.”


Many take the understood subject (“he”) of φανερωθῇ ( 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 ἐφανερώθη τί ἐσόμεθα ( efanerwqh ti esomeqa ) in 3:2 a. There the clause τί ἐσόμεθα 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 φανερωθῇ as “it” rather than “he” and as referring back to the clause τί ἐσόμεθα in 3:2 a. 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.


The second ὅτι ( Joti ) 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.”


“Focused” is not in the Greek text, but is supplied for clarity.


Grk “that one.” Context indicates a reference to Jesus here. The switch from αὐτός ( autos ) to ἐκείνος ( 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).


Grk “and.”


Grk “that one.” The context makes it clear that this is a reference to Jesus, because the reader is 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 ἐκεῖνος ( ekeinos ) in 3:3 b 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 ).


The ἵνα ( Jina ) 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.”


Here the verb μένω ( 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 ἐν αὐτῷ ( en autw ) because he is the subject of the discussion in v. 5 .


The interpretive problem raised by the use of the present tense ἁμαρτάνει ( Jamartanei ) in this verse (and ποιεῖ [ 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 §251). 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 , 151) argues essentially the same as Zerwick, stating that the present tense ἁμαρτάνει 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 [MNTC], 79) and Z. C. Hodges (“1 John,” BKCNT , 894). B. Fanning ( Verbal Aspect [OTM], 215-17) 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 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 [1969]: 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.


Grk “that one.” Context indicates a reference to Jesus here. As with the previous uses of ἐκεῖνος ( ekeinos ) by the author of 1 John ( 2:6; 3:3, 5 ), this one refers to Jesus, as the reference to “the Son of God” in the following verse ( 3:8 ) makes clear.


The present tense verb has been translated as an extending-from-past present (a present of past action still in progress). See ExSyn 520.


Here εἰς τοῦτο ( eis touto ) states the purpose for the revelation of God’s Son. However, the phrase offers the same difficulty as all the ἐν τούτῳ ( en toutw ) phrases in 1 John: Does it refer to what precedes or to what follows? By analogy with the ἐν τούτῳ construction it is probable that the phrase εἰς τοῦτο here refers to what follows: There is a ἵνα ( Jina ) clause following which appears to be related to the εἰς τοῦτο , and in fact is resumptive (that is, it restates the idea of “purpose” already expressed by the εἰς τοῦτο ). Thus the meaning is: “For this purpose the Son of God was revealed: to destroy the works of the devil.”


In the Gospel of John λύσῃ ( 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.” See BDAG 607 s.v. λύω 4 and F. Büchsel, TDNT 4:336.


The imagery expressed here ( σπέρμα αὐτοῦ , sperma autou , “his seed”) clearly refers to the action of the male parent in procreation, and so “fathered” is the best choice for translating γεννάω ( gennaw ; see 2:29 ).


The problem of the present tense of ποιεῖ ( poiei ) here is exactly that of the present tense of ἁμαρτάνει ( 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.


Both the first and second ὅτι ( Joti ) 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).”


Grk “his”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


The closest meaning for σπέρμα ( sperma ) in this context is “male generating seed” (cf. BDAG 937 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 γεννάω ( gennaw ) with reference to Christians in 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, and 18 .


“Thus” is not in the Greek text, but is supplied to bring out the resultative force of the clause in English.


Once again there is the problem (by now familiar to the interpreter of 1 John) of determining whether the phrase ἐν τούτῳ ( 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 ἐν τούτῳ 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. E. Brown ( Epistles of John [AB], 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 .


See note on the term “fellow Christian” in 2:9 . 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 ).


It could be argued (1) that the ὅτι ( Joti ) 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 ὅτι and διότι is often very loose…and must be translated ‘for.’” Thus (2) ὅτι 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 .


The word “gospel” is not in the Greek text but is supplied to clarify the meaning. See the notes on the words “gospel” and “message” in 1 John 1:5 .


See the note on the word “message” in 1 John 1:5 , where this same phrase occurs.


For the Greek verb σφάζω ( sfazw ) L&N 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.


Grk “brothers,” but the Greek word may be used for “brothers and sisters” or “fellow Christians” as here (cf. BDAG 18 s.v. ἀδελφός 1, where considerable nonbiblical evidence for the plural ἀδελφοί [ adelfoi ] meaning “brothers and sisters” is cited). Since the author is addressing his readers directly at this point, “brothers and sisters” (suggesting a degree of familial endearment) has been employed in the translation at this point, while elsewhere the less direct “fellow Christians” has been used (cf. v. 14 ).


The first ὅτι ( Joti ) 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 οἶδα ( oida ) and γινώσκω ( 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.


This verb essentially means “to transfer from one place to another, go/pass over ,” according to BDAG 638 s.v. μεταβαίνω 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.”


The second ὅτι ( Joti ) clause in 3:14 is also related to οἴδαμεν ( oidamen ), but in this case the ὅτι is causal, giving the reason why the readers know that they have passed from death to life: because they love the brothers.


See note on the phrase “fellow Christian” in 2:9 . 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 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 .


See note on the phrase “fellow Christian” in 2:9 .


The verb μένω ( 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 μένω 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 μένουσαν ( menousan ) here.


Here the phrase ἐν τούτῳ ( en toutw ) is followed by a ὅτι ( Joti ) clause which is epexegetical (or explanatory), and thus ἐν τούτῳ refers to what follows.


Grk “that one.” Context indicates a reference to Jesus. The mention of the sacrificial death in 3:16 ( ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκεν , Juper hmwn thn yuchn autou eqhken ) points to Jesus as the referent here. (This provides further confirmation that ἐκεῖνος [ ekeinos ] in 2:6; 3:3, 5, and 7 refers to Jesus.)


Here βίος ( bios ) refers to one’s means of subsistence – material goods or property (BDAG 177 s.v. 2 ). 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.


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” ( ζωὴν αἰώνιον , 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 μένω [ menw ]). Once again, conduct is the clue to paternity.


Once again there is the problem of deciding whether the phrase ἐν τούτῳ ( en toutw ) refers (1) to what precedes or (2) to what follows. When an explanatory or epexegetical ὅτι ( Joti ) clause follows, and the ὅτι clause is not grammatically unrelated to the phrase ἐν τούτῳ , then the ἐν τούτῳ is best understood as referring to what follows. Here in 3:19-20 there are no less than three ὅτι clauses that follow, one in 3:19 and two in 3:20 , and thus there is the difficulty of trying to determine whether any one of them is related to the ἐν τούτῳ phrase in 3:19 . It is relatively easy to eliminate the first ὅτι clause (in 3:19 ) from consideration, because it is related not to ἐν τούτῳ but to the verb γνωσόμεθα ( gnwsomeqa ) as an indirect discourse clause giving the content of what believers know (“that we are of the truth”). As far as the two ὅτι 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 ὅτι 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 ἐν τούτῳ 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.’


The verb πείθω ( 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” (see BDAG 791 s.v. πείθω ). Interpreters are generally divided between meaning (a) and meaning (d) for the verb in the present context, with BDAG opting for the latter (although it is pointed out that “the text is not in good order”). In any case the object of the verb πείθω in this context is καρδία ( kardia ), and this leads to further problems because the meaning of καρδία will affect one’s understanding of πείσομεν ( peisomen ) here.


Further difficulties are created by the meaning of καρδία ( kardia ) in 3:19 . Although it may be agreed that the term generally refers to the “center and source of the whole inner life, w. its thinking, feeling, and volition” (BDAG 508 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 is commonly called the conscience. Thus καρδία 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 ( ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ [ emprosqen autou ] in 3:19 and the mention of παρρησία [ parrhsia , “boldness” or “confidence”] in 3:21 ) it seems probable that the conscience , that aspect of one’s καρδία 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 πείθω ( 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.


Both ἔμπροσθεν ( emprosqen ) in 3:19 and ἐνώπιον ( 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 22 , but (2) as BDF §214.6 points out, ἔμπροσθεν and ἐνώπιον , along with a third classical expression ἐναντίον ( 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.


The first ὅτι ( Joti ) 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 ὅτι ἐάν ( Joti ean ) in 1 John, 3:2 and 5:14 . In 3:14 the ὅτι clearly introduces an indirect discourse (content) clause following οἴδαμεν ( oidamen ). In 5:14 the ὅτι is epexegetical to a preceding statement (“and this is the confidence [ ἡ παρρησία , 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 ὅτι clause in 3:20 , ὅτι ἐὰν καταγινώσκῃ ἡμῶν ἡ καρδία ( {oti ean kataginwskh Jhmwn Jh kardia ), should also be understood as epexegetical to the preceding clause, ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ πείσομεν τὴν καρδίαν ( emprosqen autou peisomen thn kardian , “and we convince our heart before him”).


In Deut 25:1 LXX καταγινώσκω ( kataginwskw ) means “to condemn” in a context where it is in opposition to δικαιοῦν ( 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 (Sir 14:2). Testament of Gad 5:3 describes a person οὐχ ὑπ᾿ ἄλλου καταγινωσκόμενος ἀλλ᾿ ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας καρδίας ( 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.


The use of two ὅτι ( Joti ) clauses in close succession is somewhat awkward, but this is nothing new for the author; and indeed he has twice previously used two ὅτι clauses in close proximity in 3:2 and 14 . In both those instances the second ὅτι was understood as causal, and (1) some interpreters would do the same here. Unless one understands both of the ὅτι clauses in 3:20 as causal, however (an option rejected based on the analogy with 5:14 , see the discussion in the note on “that” at the beginning of the present verse), the first ὅτι 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 ὅτι 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.”


The conjunction καί ( kai ) which begins 3:22 is epexegetical (explanatory), relating a further implication of the “confidence” ( παρρησίαν , 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.


The ὅτι ( Joti ) is clearly causal, giving the reason why believers receive what they ask.


The καί ( kai ) is epexegetical/explanatory (or perhaps resumptive) of the commandment(s) mentioned in the preceding verse.


This verse begins with the phrase καὶ αὕτη ἐστίν ( kai {auth estin ; cf. the similar phrase in 3:11 and 1:5 ), which is explained by the following ἵνα ( Jina ) clause, “that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ.” The ἵνα 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 ἵνα clause and the phrase in 1:5 by an epexegetical ὅτι ( Joti ) 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.


The verb μένω ( menw ) has been translated “resides” here because this verse refers to the mutual and reciprocal relationship between God and the believer. sn The verb resides ( μένω , 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, 13, 15, and 16 (3x).


Grk “in him.” In context this is almost certainly a reference to God (note the phrase “his Son Jesus Christ” in 3:23 ).


Grk “he.” In context this is almost certainly a reference to God (note the phrase “his Son Jesus Christ” in 3:23 ).


Once again there is the (by now familiar) question of whether the phrase ἐν τούτῳ ( en toutw ) refers to what precedes or to what follows. In this case, the following phrase ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος ( ek tou pneumato" ) explains the ἐν τούτῳ phrase, and so it refers to what follows.


According to BDAG 255 s.v. δοκιμάζω 1 the verb means “to make a critical examination of someth. to determine genuineness, put to the test, examine .”


The phrase “to determine” is not in the Greek text, but is supplied for clarity.


“False prophets” refers to the secessionist opponents (compare 2:19 ).


There is no subordinating conjunction following the ἐν τούτῳ ( 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 4:2 b-3a ( πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ ὁμολογεῖ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν … ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν , καὶ πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ), while not introduced by a subordinating conjunction, does explain the preceding clause beginning with ἐν τούτῳ . In other words, the following clause in 4:2 b-3a is analogous to a subordinate clause introduced by an epexegetical ἵνα ( Jina ) or ὅτι ( Joti ), 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.”


Or “acknowledges.”


and others) read ὁμολογήσῃ αὐτὸν Χριστόν ( 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 Χριστόν is the complement (what is predicated of the first accusative) since the object (the first accusative) is αὐτόν rather than the proper name ᾿Ιησοῦν . 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.


The καί ( 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.”


Or “does not acknowledge.”


A number of variants are generated from the simple τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν ( ton Ihsoun ), some of which turn the expression into an explicit object-complement construction. ᾿Ιησοῦν κύριον ( Ihsoun kurion , “Jesus as Lord”) is found in א , τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν ( ton Ihsoun Criston , “Jesus as Christ”) is read by the Byzantine minuscules, τὸν Χριστόν (“the Christ”) is the reading of 1846, and ᾿Ιησοῦν without the article is found in 1881 2464. But τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν is well supported by A B Ψ 33 81 1739 al , and internally best explains the rise of the others. It is thus preferred on both external and internal grounds.


“Spirit” is not in the Greek text but is implied.


“But” supplied here to bring out the context. The conjunction is omitted in the Greek text (asyndeton).


The phrase ἐκ τούτου ( ek toutou ) in 4:6 , which bears obvious similarity to the much more common phrase ἐν τούτῳ ( 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 last is most likely, because the present phrase forms an inclusion with the phrase ἐν τούτῳ 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 .


This ὅτι ( Joti ) 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 καί ( kai ), does not give a second reason (i.e., is not related to the ὅτι clause), but introduces a second and additional thought: Everyone who loves is fathered by God and knows God.


As in 2:23 and 3:4 , the author uses πᾶς ( 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 [ πᾶς , pas ] is omitted) it is clear that a contrast is intended.


The verb γεννάω ( 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 ).


The author proclaims in 4:8 ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν ( 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.


Once again there is the problem of determining whether the phrase ἐν τούτῳ ( 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 ( 4:9, 10, 13, 17; 5:2 ). In this case (as also in the next two instances) there is a ὅτι ( Joti ) clause following which is related and which explains (i.e., which is epexegetical to) the phrase ἐν τούτῳ . 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.”


In terms of syntax the force of the genitive τοῦ θεοῦ ( 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 ὅτι ( Joti ) 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.


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 ( μένει , menei ) in us.”


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 ὅτι ( Joti ) clauses which follow, both of which are epexegetical to the phrase ἐν τούτῳ ( 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.”


The two ὅτι ( Joti ) clauses are epexegetical to the phrase ἐν τούτῳ ( 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.


Grk “and.” The Greek conjunction καί ( kai ) introduces the apodosis of the conditional sentence.


This is a first-class conditional sentence with εἰ ( 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 ).


The phrase “God resides in us” ( ὁ θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν μένει , 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 4:13 b. Since it refers to state and not to change of status it is here translated “resides” (see 2:6 ).


The phrase “his [God’s] love is perfected ( τετελειωμένη ἐστίν , teteleiwmenh estin ) in us” in 4:12 is difficult. First it is necessary to decide whether αὐτοῦ ( 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, 4:11 a, has believers as the objects of God’s love ( ὁ θεὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς , Jo qeo" hgaphsen Jhma" ). The entire phrase ἡ ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν τετελειωμένη ἐστίν ( 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 , ἐάν ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους [ 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 3:23 b).


Again whether the referent of the phrase ἐν τούτῳ ( en toutw ) (1) precedes or (2) follows is a problem. This time there are two ὅτι ( Joti ) clauses which follow. The first is an indirect discourse clause related to γινώσκομεν ( ginwskomen ) and giving the content of what believers know: “that we reside in him and he in us.” The second ὅτι clause is epexegetical (or explanatory) to the ἐν τούτῳ 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 3:24 b in essentially identical terms.


Grk “in him.” Context indicates that the pronoun refers to God (see 4:12 ).


Because σωτῆρα ( swthra ) is the object complement of υἱόν ( 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.”


Grk “Whoever.”


Here μένει ( menei , from μένω [ menw ]) has been translated as “resides” because the confession is constitutive of the relationship, and the resulting state (“God resides in him”) is in view.


Both ἐγνώκαμεν ( egnwkamen ) and πεπιστεύκαμεν ( 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 ( ἐγνώκαμεν ) and belief in ( πεπιστεύκαμεν ) “the love which God has in us.” But what is the relationship between the two verbs γινώσκω ( ginwskw ) and πιστεύω ( 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 [ πεπιστεύκαμεν ] and to know [ ἐγνώκαμεν ] 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.


The force of the preposition ἐν ( en ) in the phrase ἐν ἡμῖν ( en Jhmin ) in 4:16 a 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 ἔχω ( ecw ) with the preposition ἐν ( 3:15 and 5:10 ) both of which literally mean something in someone.


Once again μένω ( 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.”


The referent of ἐν τούτῳ ( en toutw ) here is more difficult to determine than most, because while there are both ἵνα ( Jina ) and ὅτι ( Joti ) clauses following, it is not clear whether or not they are related to the ἐν τούτῳ . There are actually three possibilities for the referent of ἐν τούτῳ in 4:17 : (1) it may refer to the ἵνα 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 ἐν [ en ]) to mean “about” or “concerning” with reference to the day of judgment in order to make logical sense. (2) The ἐν τούτῳ may refer to the ὅτι clause in 4:17 b, 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 there are numerous cases where ἐν τούτῳ is explained by a ὅτι clause that follows. However, according to this understanding the intervening ἵνα clause is awkward, and there is no other instance of the phrase ἐν τούτῳ explained by a following ὅτι clause where a ἵνα clause intervenes between the two in this way. (3) Thus, the third possibility is that ἐν τούτῳ refers to what precedes in 4:16 b, 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 ἐν τούτῳ referring to what precedes in 4:16 b, and the ἵνα clause which follows indicates the result of this perfection of love in believers: In the future day of judgment they will have confidence. The ὅτι 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.


The preposition μετά ( meta ) means “with” and modifies the verb τετελείωται ( teteleiwtai ). If the prepositional phrase modified the noun ἡ ἀγάπη which immediately precedes it, it would almost certainly have the Greek article, thus: ἡ ἀγάπη ἡ μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν ( Jh agaph Jh meq ’ Jhmwn ). sn To say love is perfected with us means “with regard to our actions in loving our brothers.”


Grk “that one” (a reference to Jesus is indicated in the context). Once more the author uses the pronoun ἐκεῖνος ( ekeinos ) to refer to Jesus Christ, as he did in 2:6; 3:3, 5, 7, and 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.


Grk “punishment, and the person who fears.”


“Punishment” is not repeated in the Greek text at this point but is implied.


Grk “if anyone should say…”


“Yet” is supplied to bring out the contrast.


See note on the phrase “fellow Christian” in 2:9 .


The ἵνα ( Jina ) 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 ἵνα clause as (3) epexegetical to the pronoun ταύτην ( 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.”


Or “the Messiah.”


The verb γεννάω ( 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 the note on “fathered” in 2:29 for further discussion of this imagery.


places the conjunction in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.


Once more there is the familiar difficulty of determining whether the phrase refers (1) to what precedes or (2) to what follows. Here, because ἐν τούτῳ ( en toutw ) is followed by a clause introduced by ὅταν ( Jotan ) which appears to be related, it is best to understand ἐν τούτῳ as referring to what follows. The following ὅταν clause is epexegetical to ἐν τούτῳ , 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.”


The force of the γάρ ( gar ) at the beginning of 5:3 is similar to another introductory formula used by the author of 1 John, καὶ αὕτη ἐστίν ( kai Jauth estin ; used in 1:5; 5:4, 11, and 14 ). The γάρ draws an inference based on the preceding statements, particularly the one in 5:2 b, 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 ἵνα ( Jina ) clause makes clear, loving God consists in keeping his commandments.


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.


, it is best to place a full stop (period) following τηρῶμεν ( thrwmen ) in 5:3 . The subordinate clause introduced by ὅτι ( Joti ) at the beginning of 5:4 is related to the second half of 5:3 which begins with καί ( kai ). Καί is commonly used by the author to begin a new sentence, probably by analogy with the Hebrew vav consecutive.


The explicit reason the commandments of God are not burdensome to the believer is given by the ὅτι ( Joti ) clause at the beginning of 5:4 . It is because “everyone who is begotten by God conquers the world.”


The masculine might have been expected here rather than the neuter πᾶν τὸ γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ( 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.


Or “overcomes.”


Grk “And this.”


The standard English translation for ἡ νίκη ( Jh nikh ) is “victory” (BDAG 673 s.v.) but this does not preserve the relationship with the cognate verb νικάω ( nikaw ; used in 2:13,14 and present in this context in participial form in 5:4 b and 5:5 ). One alternative would be “conquest,” although R. E. Brown ( Epistles of John [AB], 570) suggests “conquering power” as a translation for ἡ νίκη since here it is a metonymy for the means of victory or the power that gives victory, referring to believers’ faith.


The use of the aorist participle ( ἡ νικήσασα , Jh nikhsasa ) to refer to faith as the conquering power that “has conquered the world” in 5:4 b 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 5:4 b 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.


After a verb of perception (the participle ὁ πιστεύων [ Jo pisteuwn ]) the ὅτι ( Joti ) in 5:5 introduces indirect discourse, a declarative or recitative clause giving the content of what the person named by the participle ( ὁ πιστεύων ) 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.


This ὅτι ( Joti ) 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 ὅτι clause following the cognate verb μαρτυρέω ( marturevw ) often gives the content of the testimony (cf. John 1:34; 3:28; 4:39, 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 ὅτι clause following μαρτυρέω 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.”


A second causal ὅτι ( Joti ) 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 ὅτι clause (the one in question here) goes somewhat beyond the content of the first. The first ὅτι 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 ὅτι clause, here, states that there are three witnesses, of which the Spirit is one. It is probably best, therefore, to understand this second ὅτι 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 ὅτι .


Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα ( to pneuma kai to {udwr kai to |aima ), the Textus Receptus ( TR ) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ , ὁ πατήρ , ὁ λόγος , καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα , καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι . 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“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 Johanneum , 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 TCGNT 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late mss , four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. The next oldest mss on behalf of the Comma , 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note ( v.l. ). The remaining mss are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 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 4th 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 (1522) 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 mss that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms 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 mss 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 TR 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 mss 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 goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek mss (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR ; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek mss until the 16th century)? 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.


This ὅτι ( Joti ) 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.”


The problem with αὕτη ( jJauth ) 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 αὕτη ( 1:5; 3:11, 23 ) suggests a reference to what follows. In all of the other instances of αὕτη ἐστιν ( {auth estin , 1:5; 3:11, 23 ) the phrase is followed by an epexegetical (explanatory) clause giving the referent ( ὅτι [ Joti ] in 1:5 , ἵνα [ Jina ] in 3:11 and 23 ). The ὅτι clause which follows the αὕτη in 5:9 does not explain the testimony, but should be understood as an adjectival relative clause which qualifies the testimony further. The ὅτι clause which explains the testimony of 5:9 (to which the αὕτη in 5:9 refers) is found in 5:11 , where the phrase αὕτη ἐστιν is repeated. Thus the second use of αὕτη ἐστιν in 5:11 is resumptive , and the ὅτι clause which follows the αὕτη in 5:11 is the epexegetical (explanatory) clause which explains both it and the αὕτη in 5:9 which it resumes.


The second ὅτι ( Joti ) 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 ὅτι clause which is almost certainly causal (although the second ὅτι could perhaps be resumptive in force, continuing the first). (2) The second ὅτι 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 ὅτι 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 5:10 b: “because he has not believed the testimony that ( ἣν , Jhn ) God has testified concerning his Son.” (There is in fact a textual problem with the second ὅτι in 5:9 : The Byzantine tradition, along with ms P, reads a relative pronoun [ ἣν ] in place of the second ὅτι in 5:9 identical to the relative pronoun in 5:10 b. 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 ὅτι in 5:9 it has been suggested that the conjunction ὅτι should be read as an indefinite relative pronoun ὅτι (sometimes written ὅ τι ). The problem with this suggestion is the use of the neuter relative pronoun to refer to a feminine antecedent ( ἡ μαρτυρία , 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 5:9 b and then use the normal feminine relative pronoun ( ἣν ) 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 ὅτι as equivalent to a relative pronoun, the third option is preferred, although it is not without its difficulties (as are all three options).


The ὅτι ( Joti ) clause in 5:11 is epexegetical (explanatory) to the phrase καὶ αὕτη ἐστίν ( kai Jauth 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.”


“This” is a translation of the Greek anaphoric article.


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 .


Theoretically the pronoun ταῦτα ( tauta ) could refer (1) to what precedes or (2) to what follows. Since it is followed by a ἵνα ( Jina ) clause which gives the purpose for the writing, and a new subject is introduced in 5:14 ( ἡ παρρησία , Jh parrhsia ), it seems almost certain that the ταῦτα in 5:13 refers to preceding material. Even at this, some would limit the referent of ταῦτα (1) only to 5:1-12 or even 5:12 , but more likely ταῦτα 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 ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ( tauta egraya Jumin ) in 5:13 forms an inclusion with the statement καὶ ταῦτα γράφομεν ἡμεῖς ( kai tauta grafomen Jhmei" ) at the end of the prologue ( 1:4 ) and encompasses the entire body of the letter.


The dative participle πιστεύουσιν ( pisteuousin ) in 5:13 is in simple apposition to the indirect object of ἔγραψα ( egraya ), ὑμῖν ( 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 αὐτοῖς ( autois ) and the participle is τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ( toi" pisteuousin ) as here.


This ἵνα ( Jina ) introduces a clause giving the author’s purpose for writing “these things” ( ταῦτα , 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 ἵνα , as here.