That which represents the neuter of the Greek relative pronoun. It is used here in spite of the fact that the Greek term it ultimately refers to, namely logos “word,” is masculine in gender. This grammatical incongruity serves a purpose. It suggests (but not more than “suggests”) that the situation and qualities of the word cannot clearly and unequivocally be described in human language. In languages with quite different grammatical categories, however, it usually is impossible to imitate this stylistic trait; attempts to express it in other ways tend to result in overtranslation or in change of meaning.

From the beginning. The use of from serves to indicate that the Word not only appeared at the moment mentioned (as expressed by “In the beginning,” Gen 1.1; John 1.1), but that it has existed and been active ever since. Thus the period concerned reaches from the earliest point of time to the present; hence, ‘from of old’ in one version. Compare also such a rendering of the clause as “which has always existed” (Phillips).

† The beginning: here (and in 2.13-14; 3.8; compare also on 3.11) the noun refers to the beginning of creation. At other occurrences the reference is to the beginning of the preaching of the gospel; compare 2.7. If the noun has to be rendered by a verb, one may say, ‘ever since the world began (or was created, or existed).’

The noun beginning is expressed in some languages by terms, or derivations of terms, which literally mean ‘origin,’ ‘root,’ ‘trunk,’ ‘place-where-the-canoe-point-rolls-first,’ etc.

Which we have heard, or, changing to a coordinate sentence, ‘we have heard it (that is, the Word),’ or, where one has to indicate the person who has been speaking, ‘we have heard him (speak),’ ‘we have heard his words.’ This and the two following clauses serve to express that the Word has been perceived through the use of these three senses: hearing, sight, and touch.

Which we have seen with our eyes: in some languages it would be redundant to say with our eyes in combination with the verb ‘to see.’ In such cases the emphatic function of this prepositional phrase must be expressed by other means; for example, ‘we ourselves actually have seen it/him,’ ‘our (own) eyes were fixed upon him.’

These two relative clauses together form the first part of verse 1b. The verbs are both in the perfect tense, showing that the reference is to an event in the past that is still effective in the present. The clause about seeing the word has a more elaborate form than the clause about hearing it.

The second part of verse 1b (which we have looked upon and touched with our hands) resembles the first in rhythm and structure. In this part also the second statement is more elaborate than the first, and the two verbs are in the same tense, which is the aorist, however. Since the meaning of this tense seems not basically to differ here from that of the preceding perfects, it was probably chosen for reasons of stylistic variation only.

Which we have looked upon. The function of this clause is more or less a transitional one. It leads to the fourth and strongest statement of verse 1b, which forms its climax: the object is not only heard and seen, but even touched. The Greek verb used here refers in some contexts to attentive seeing and observing, or has a somewhat solemn sound, but in the Johannine writings it is virtually interchangeable with the more common Greek verb for “to see” used in the directly preceding clause. Accordingly this variation seems again to be for stylistic rather than semantic reasons.

And touched with our hands, or (closer to the Greek) ‘and (which) our hands touched,’ which is a construction that is more natural in some receptor languages. The term hands is often used to refer to, or to emphasize, agency. Therefore ‘and which we ourselves (actually) have touched’ is a perfectly legitimate rendering of the clause. Such a rendering will be especially useful where the combination ‘to touch with the hands’ would be unduly redundant.

The verb have … touched is used to stress the reality and bodily existence of that which was from the beginning and was perceived by the eyewitnesses. In Luke 24.39 the same Greek verb is used to indicate that Jesus has risen, not as a ghost or spirit, but as a corporeal being. Other possible renderings of the verb are ‘to handle,’ ‘to feel all over,’ ‘to move one’s hand over (the body of).’ In some cultures touching has undesirable connotations. Therefore one Mayan language uses ‘we were close to him.’

The construction the word of life expresses that the first noun is equated with, or qualified by, the second; hence ‘the Word which is life,’ or ‘the Word which gives life,’ ‘the Word which causes people to live,’ ‘the Word, the life,’ are possible renderings of this phrase.

In this verse the word should preferably be interpreted along the lines of the Prologue to the Gospel of John. Taken thus it refers to the divine Word by which the world has been created and exists, which reveals God’s being and expresses his will, wisdom, and power, and has become man in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1.14). Accordingly it functions here as a descriptive name or a title and may be marked as such; compare several versions that use a capital (King James Version [King James Version], Good News Translation, Nieuwe Vertaling, Bible de Jérusalem, and others). Except for such a marker the rendering of word to be used here should not basically differ from the one used in “his word” and “the word of God” (1.10; 2.5,14).

† For word (also in 2.7; 3.18; 3 John 10) the receptor language may have a term that has a wider meaning than that of “a single word” and covers several related concepts, for example, ‘word/speech/message,’ ‘word/matter/idea,’ ‘speech/voice/sound/word/command,’ ‘phrase/sentence/statement,’ ‘utterance/saying/narrative/message,’ ‘word/speech/thought/action.’ There is no objection against the use of such a term as long as it includes a reference to meaningful expression.

In some receptor languages word must be modified to indicate possession, or its normal rendering is not a noun but a verbal expression. This may lead to the use of some expression that uses several words, such as ‘he who is (called) God’s word (or God’s voice),’ ‘he in whom God speaks.’ For the clash that may arise between grammatical categories for the inanimate and the animate, or personal, see above, the third general remark on verses 1-4.

† Life is in Greek zōē, occurring also in 1.2; 2.25; 3.14-15; 5.11 and following, 16, 20. It refers to vitality, the (not essentially personal) principle and force of life, animating man’s motion and action, his intellect and emotions. The Greek term is distinguished from the more personal psuchē (3.16; 3 John 2), that is, “(breath of) life,” “soul,” “principle of life,” referring to natural life, then to the seat and center of man’s inner life with its many and varied aspects, its desires, feelings, and emotions; and from bios (2.16f), that is, life on earth in its functions and duration, then also basic essentials of life, “livelihood,” “property.”

In the Johannine writings zōē is often used in a sense that is further developed, namely, real life, life seen as something which man does not possess by nature, but which God gives to those who believe in Christ. For John it is not an abstraction but a reality, as real as Christ himself, with whom it is equated (John 11.25; 14.6; compare also Paul’s “Christ who is our life” in Col 3.4). A fuller expression of the same concept is “eternal life,” see comments on 1 John 1.2b.

Several receptor languages employ two or three distinctive terms not unlike the Greek ones. Thus one Aztec language distinguishes between a word for ‘heart life’ (suitable here, since it is thought of as animating every part of man’s intellectual and emotional existence) and a term for physical existence, the type of life every animal has. In some other languages the rendering used literally means ‘strong breast’ or ‘undyingness,’ or it is associated with ‘having breath’ or ‘growth.’ The fact that this kind of life is not man’s by nature may make necessary the use of a qualifying term, as in ‘new life,’ or ‘new self/personality/innermost-being.’

Quoted with permission from Haas, C., de Jonge, M. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on The First Letter of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1972. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

VERSE 2. This verse gives fuller explanation about “the life.” The Greek uses the connective kai “and.” This may be rendered here ‘for,’ ‘indeed,’ ‘yes,’ ‘this, of a truth,’ but in some cases it is better left untranslated; for example, where the use of a parenthesis in itself already suggests that the verse functions as an explanation. To strengthen the coherence of the discourse, one may add a back-pointing element, as in ‘this life,’ ‘the life just mentioned.’

The life was made manifest, or ‘was revealed,’ ‘was brought to the open,’ ‘was to be seen,’ ‘became visible,’ ‘showed itself.’ The tense used in the Greek is the aorist, indicating that the reference is to an event in the past, namely Jesus’ appearance in history. To bring this out, one language uses ‘to come’ with a suffix indicating that this happened for the first time and that he had never before been seen by the speaker.

† Was made manifest (in this verse and 4.9) renders the passive form of a Greek verb “to reveal,” “to show.” The same Greek form is often used in connection with Jesus, especially so in the Johannine writings. Then it refers to his appearing among men during his earthly life (here, and 3.5, 8), or to the appearances after his resurrection (John 21.14), or to the final manifestation at his second coming (1 John 2.28; perhaps also 3.2). In most of these occurrences Revised Standard Version and Good News Bible use “to appear,” but in John 21.14 they have “was revealed” and “showed himself.”

We saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life: in this rendering it refers back to “life,” which is thus taken as the goal of the two first verbs. It is possible, even preferable, however, to understand “the eternal life” as the goal of all three verbs, for example, ‘we saw, and testify to, and proclaim the eternal life,’ or ‘we saw the eternal life, and testify to it, and proclaim it.’

Semantically speaking, however, this difference of construction is not very important in the context, because the eternal life is only a more expressive repetition of “the life,” and both are virtually interchangeable in the Johannine writings. Hence a construction like that of Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation, or of Translators’ Translation of the Johannine Epistles (Translators’ Translation) (“we have seen it, we bear witness to it, we declare it to you, that eternal life”), is quite acceptable also. The same is true of an alternative solution that transposes the phrase “the eternal life” to verse 2c (which see).

In the Greek the first verb is in the perfect tense, again referring to the past, but the next two verbs are in the present tense. This sequence serves to express that what happened before has its results now. Therefore and before the second verb is better rendered “so” (Good News Translation) or, subordinating the rest of the sentence, ‘so that (now).’

The last verb (we … proclaim) is identical with the main verb of the sentence (in verse 3a). This stylistic feature serves to strengthen the connection between the parenthesis and the sentence as a whole.

† The verb testify is basically a legal term for telling in court what one has seen and heard. The phrase here means to tell publicly what life really is, as witnesses who know the life revealed by Jesus, “the Word of life,” in the deeds they saw him perform and the words they heard him speak. The use of this verb implies that they spoke about these words and deeds because they were well aware of their real meaning, and believed in Jesus. For this interaction of hearing and seeing with testifying, and with faith see also 4.14-16; John 1.32, 34; 19.35, and compare 3.11, 32. Where a specific term for “to testify” or “to bear witness” does not exist, a descriptive rendering of the phrase may be given; for example, ‘tell just how it is,’ ‘tell what one has heard and seen,’ ‘tell what one has experienced.’

The verb testify (occurring also in 4.14; 3 John 3, 6, 12) stands for a Greek verb which is also rendered “to bear witness” (5.9) and “to bear testimony” (5.10). The present participle of the same Greek verb, functioning as an agent noun, has as its equivalent in English the noun “witness” (5.7-8). And the related verbal noun, referring to the act of testifying, or the words spoken when testifying, occurs in Revised Standard Version as “testimony” (5.9 and following; 3 John 12).

Proclaim renders a Greek verb that has the meaning “to report” or “to tell,” rather than “to proclaim.” It has an important semantic component in common with “to testify,” namely that of reporting. Accordingly, the two verbs are in some cases better combined into one; for example, ‘we report to you what we heard and saw.’ If a verb referring to communication by mouth would be confusing in the context of a letter, one may use a verb for “to write” (as the text itself has in verse 4).

† The eternal life (also in 2.25; 3.15; 5.11, 13, 20), or, shifting from noun to verb, ‘what causes people to live eternally’: The qualification eternal (Greek aiōnios) is added in order to make explicit that this life is something of a different order, namely, the order of the coming aeon or age (Greek aiōn), and accordingly has a quality which is superior to anything in the present age. This life of the coming age, revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, is attainable in the present age for all who believe in him.

One of the superior qualities of this life is that sin, illness, and death no longer exist. Consequently the Greek term for eternal has also the semantic component of unending duration, but this, though important, is a secondary component. To express the primary component one can often best use such terms as ‘true,’ ‘real,’ ‘full.’ Thus one Papuan language has ‘fullness/hugeness of life,’ the term ‘fullness/hugeness’ being used in the language as a qualification of things divine.

However, several versions, probably even the majority, follow the reverse method when translating the term in question. They use a rendering which only secondarily means superior quality but primarily refers to long or endless duration, such as, ‘everlasting,’ ‘for ever,’ ‘continuous,’ ‘all times,’ ‘year and year,’ ‘without end.’ This is done on the assumption that such a term also possesses the meaning of superior quality, or has acquired it by usage. Before introducing such a rendering translators should carefully investigate whether this assumption holds true for the receptor language concerned.

Which was with the Father and was made manifest to us. The first part of this relative clause closely parallels verse 1a; both refer to what is outside the human sphere of space and time. The second part repeats verse 2a and serves to bring the parenthesis to a close. These stylistic features are intended to strengthen the inner structure of the long sentence. At the same time verse 2c forms a climax, which is often best brought out when the phrase “the eternal life” is transposed from verse 2b to verse 2c; compare, for example, ‘we have seen it, we bear witness to it, and proclaim it to you: the eternal life, which was with the Father, appeared to us.’

Was with indicates that the life and the Father ‘belonged together’ (as one language has it, using a reciprocal derivation of ‘yoke/cross-beam’). Another way to express the same concept is found in such renderings of the clause as ‘life was near the Father.’ Sometimes the function of “to be” is performed by such verbs as ‘to live,’ ‘to dwell,’ or ‘to sit’ (the third being used in one language when the subject is a person, as against ‘to lie’ when it is a thing).

† The Father (here and in 1.3; 2.1, 13 (14 in the Greek New Testament), 15-16, 22-24; 3.1; 4.14; 2 John 3-4, 9) refers to God, the heavenly Father of Jesus and men. This reference may have to be made explicit; for example, ‘Father God,’ ‘the Father above.’ Often the noun may best be treated as a proper name, for example, by adding a name qualifier.

If the receptor language word for father must show to whom the person is father, one has the choice between ‘his father,’ that is, the father of Jesus Christ, or ‘our (inclusive) father.’ The latter is preferable provided it does not obscure the fact that God is men’s Father because he is Jesus’ Father. But it may create a problem in languages that differentiate according to social status. In such languages the translator may hesitate between considerations of reverence, requiring the use of honorifics when referring to the deity, and considerations of modesty, making obligatory the avoidance of honorifics with reference to what is the speaker’s own, such as his possessions, body, or family. In this conflict considerations of reverence seem, as a rule, to predominate, resulting in the use of honorific term for ‘father,’ even in phrases which refer to the speaker’s father. This is acceptable because the word is used metaphorically.

Quoted with permission from Haas, C., de Jonge, M. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on The First Letter of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1972. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

That which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you: the sequence seen and heard is a reversal of that in verse 1b for the sake of stylistic variety, again, or because, seen best fits the directly preceding “made manifest” (compare the sequence in verse 2ab). Also serves to emphasize the subsequent to you, in contrast with the preceding we: what “we” have experienced is now communicated to “you.”

In translation the clause should echo the structure of verse 1b and the verb occurring in verse 2b as closely as possible. In some cases it is best rendered as a new sentence (compare above on verses 1-3b); in others an introductory phrase is required such as ‘we repeat’ or ‘I am going to say to you again.’

The conjunction so in so that you may have fellowship with us refers to intended result. Rendering the clause as a coordinate sentence, one may say, for example, ‘(and) so you shall have…,’ ‘we want you to have….’ For have fellowship with see the next entry.

And our fellowship is with …. The use of the Greek particles kai and de together is at first view somewhat redundant; but the first may be taken to emphasize our fellowship, thus indicating a shift of focus from what “you” may have to what “we” have already. As for the second, it probably has transitional function, and shows that verse 3c is, in form, a new sentence. In context, however, it is closely connected with verse 3b, of which it is the continuation and further development. Together with verse 3b it serves to express the thought that “you,” through entering the fellowship with the eyewitnesses, will come to participate in the fellowship the latter have with God and Christ. Some versions prefer to bring this out by rendering verse 3bc as one sentence; compare, for example, “so that you will join with us in the fellowship that we have with…” (Good News Translation).

In our fellowship is with, the pronoun should get some emphasis. This may lead to renderings such as ‘the fellowship we have is with’ or ‘we are fellows of.’

† Fellowship (here and verses 6-7), or ‘being fellows/partners/companions,’ refers to “being together,” “doing something together,” and “sharing something.” The term should be understood in the light of such passages as John 15.1-8 and 1 Cor 12.12-31. It refers to the life the believers share with Christ and with one another.

Some of the renderings used have the basic meaning of ‘being friends,’ ‘being one,’ ‘togetherness,’ ‘eating together,’ or ‘eating out of one dish’ (both usable in an expanded meaning), ‘being of the same mind,’ ‘head-hearts becoming one.’ Or they are reciprocal forms of verbs or verbal phrases like ‘to stay contentedly,’ ‘to love,’ ‘to feel.’ Such forms may require some syntactic shifts; for example, ‘we and you love-one-another,’ ‘we (inclusive) are-one-with-each-other’ in verse 3b, or ‘we and God and his Son Jesus Christ feel-with-each-other’ in verse 3c.

With the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. This construction simply puts the Father and the Son side by side, but it probably means to say that the fellowship with the Father is the ultimate goal (mentioned first, therefore), and that this goal is to be reached through fellowship with the Son (compare 2.23).

† In his Son, often ‘his Child,’ the gender must be inferred from the accompanying masculine forms or from the general context. Translational problems are basically the same as for “the Son of God” (for which see 3.8), but they may be more easily solved in the present verse, because it mentions “the Son” in direct combination with “the Father.” Other occurrences of his Son in the sense of “the Son of God” are 1.7; 3.23; 4.9 (with “only”), 10, 14; 5.9-12, 20; compare also “the Father’s Son” in 2 John 3.

† Jesus Christ: Here, and at the other occurrences of this combination (2.1; 3.23; 4.2; 5.6, 20; 2 John 3, 7), both words should be treated as proper names and accordingly be transliterated. Compare also comments on “Jesus” in 1 John 1.7, and on “Christ” in 2.22.

Quoted with permission from Haas, C., de Jonge, M. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on The First Letter of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1972. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

And we are writing this, namely, ‘to you,’ which may have to be added for reasons of idiom. The Greek present tense can better be rendered simply by “we write” (King James Version, New English Bible [New English Bible], Good News Translation). The connective “And” has resultative force here and may be rendered by ‘Therefore’ or ‘So.’

The plural pronoun we is confusing in some languages, because it is after all one person who is writing, though as the representative of many eyewitnesses. Some versions therefore have to shift to the first person singular.

This refers to the message of the letter as a whole rather than to a specific item in what directly precedes or follows.

† The reference of the verb are writing is to the fact rather than to the manner of communication, to information rather than to the actual tracing of a series of characters. For this reason some versions use a verb meaning ‘to tell,’ ‘to inform of,’ ‘to communicate.’ The same holds true in the other occurrences of the verb in 2.1, 7-8, 12-14, 21, 26; 2 John 5, 12; 3 John 9, 13.

In that our joy may be complete (or ‘so that we may have complete joy,’ ‘so that we may rejoice fully/completely’), the conjunction that refers to intended result again.

Our is given inclusive force in some versions, but it is more in line with the structure of verses 1-4 to take it as exclusive, referring to the group of eyewitnesses only, not including the persons addressed. The clause indicates that the joy the eyewitnesses have because of their fellowship with God through Christ can be complete only when other Christians share that fellowship.

† Joy, or ‘gladness,’ is an important Johannine term; compare, for example, John 15.11; 16.20, 22, 24; 17.13. In these Letters it occurs also in 2 John 12; 3 John 4; compare also “rejoice” in 2 John 4; 3 John 3. Receptor languages often possess one specific term for the concept but sometimes express it by an idiomatic phrase such as ‘happiness of life,’ ‘warmth (or smiling, or good feeling) of heart,’ ‘the being lifted up of the heart,’ ‘the good taste of one’s heart,’ ‘the spirit being made sweet,’ ‘a song in the stomach,’ ‘having a sweet (or wide open) liver,’ ‘expansion of the inner-being.’

† Complete is in the Greek literally “filled,” then, “full.” The same term occurs in 2 John 12. It expresses that the joy will lack nothing, that it will fill their hearts to the brim. The term refers to the highest degree: they will be as glad as they possibly can be.

The concept, of course, can be expressed in different ways, dependent on the specific idiom used for joy; compare, for example, ‘that our hearts may be lifted up to the highest point.’ In one language, where fullness of joy is associated with tranquillity, the clause is rendered by ‘that our hearts may sit down.’ In another language one says ‘that joy may be equal to our minds.’

Quoted with permission from Haas, C., de Jonge, M. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on The First Letter of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1972. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Before John states what he views as the central point of Jesus’ message (verse 5b), he refers briefly (in verse 5a) to the role of we: he and his cowitnesses are mediators who proclaim (compare verses 2 and 3) to you the message they themselves have heard from Jesus. Where it is preferable to use coordinated sentences, one may say something like ‘There is a message from Jesus Christ. We have heard it and (now) proclaim it to you. It is (or He said) this, “God is light…” ’ or ‘We proclaim to you what we have heard from Jesus Christ. His message is that God is light….’

In the message we have heard from him, or ‘the message we heard him utter,’ the pronoun we has exclusive force again. The verb is in the perfect tense to indicate that their hearing in the past is still effective in the present. The pronoun him refers back to “his Son Jesus Christ” in verse 3. This has often to be made explicit.

† Message (here and 3.11) basically means “something a person is sent (or ordered) by somebody to tell to someone else”; then, “what one has to tell to another,” “news.” Where an analytical rendering is to be used, the clause may have to be restructured; for example, ‘something we have to tell (you); we have heard it from Jesus Christ.’

The verb proclaim is better rendered ‘to tell,’ ‘to convey’; or, in order to bring out that the writer functions as an intermediary here, “we pass on” (New English Bible). In some cases it is to be rendered by a causative form of ‘to hear.’

Verse 5b may be rendered either in indirect discourse (Revised Standard Version and others) or in direct discourse (Good News Translation and others); the Greek connective allows both interpretations.

In God is light, the predicate noun light indicates quality; hence, ‘God has as quality light,’ ‘God, light (is) his being.’ But the intended meaning is in some cases better expressed by another construction; compare, for example, ‘God lights’ (verb, meaning ‘functions as daylight’), ‘there is only light in the presence of God.’

† The problem of rendering God will usually have been solved long before the translation of the Johannine Letters is begun. However, where it is still a matter of discussion, the following points should be kept in mind: (1) The term to be used should preferably be a noun, allowing both pluralization, to refer to “the gods of the heathen,” and specification, referring to the “one and only God of the believer.” The use of a proper name, for example, the name of a so-called High-God, is not advisable. (2) Where no appropriate term for God can be found, it is often possible to coin a descriptive phrase built on an existing indigenous expression; for example, ‘the One (in the) above,’ ‘The great Ruler,’ ‘The Eternal Spirit.’ (3) Indigenous terms are, as a rule, better than borrowings. Yet the use of the latter can sometimes not be avoided. In such a case it may be wise to add a qualifying phrase that helps to interpret the meaning correctly, as in, ‘Dios (from Spanish) our Father’ in some American Indian languages.

† Light is a widespread symbol, but its symbolic associations vary in accordance with the system of thought in which it is used. In the Hellenistic culture light was associated with excellence, purity, integrity, wisdom, and so forth, and as such was an appropriate and commonly used symbol for the divine. The opposition light—darkness was parallel to that of heaven – earth, spirit – matter, higher – lower nature, true knowledge (“enlightenment”) – false knowledge, eternity – time, and so forth, and all such pairs of opposites were viewed as aspects of the basic opposition of the good and the bad principle.

John’s adversaries were strongly influenced by these ideas. Their aim was to enter the sphere of light and to escape the earthly sphere and its obligations. This led to indifference towards all those who were not thus “enlightened.” To John many of these symbolic associations of light were known also, but his interpretation of them is entirely different. He views the opposition light – darkness as an ethical one, affecting the character, intentions, and deeds of man, rather than a metaphysical one. Therefore he states again and again in this letter that living in the light means love, justice, and goodness towards one’s brother.

In the receptor culture these symbolic associations of light may be partly, sometimes even mostly, different. Despite such cultural nonconformity a more or less literal rendering of the term should be given, trusting that a fuller understanding of the symbolism will arise from the context and from its exposition in Christian preaching and teaching. It may be advisable, however, to shift from metaphor to simile, ‘God is light, as it were,’ ‘God’s being is like light.’

Renderings of the term often cover also the concept ‘sun(light),’ ‘day(light),’ or may be built on an adjective meaning ‘bright,’ ‘clear.’ The Greek uses one word for two concepts, namely, the source, or cause of light (in the sense of clarity/brightness, here and 2.8), and its effect, or radiance (1.7; 2.9-10). The same is true of English and several other receptor languages, but elsewhere one may have to make a distinction between the two. In that case the former concept has been rendered by such terms as ‘illumination,’ ‘that-which-shines,’ ‘that which causes-light.’ The last mentioned rendering may lead to further restructurings of the clause, such as ‘God causes clearness’ or ‘God makes all things bright.’

In him is no darkness at all: the author reinforces the thought of the preceding clause by adding a negative statement of the opposite thought. This is a stylistic device he uses rather frequently. The clause serves to emphasize that the proposition God is light is an absolute one, without any exception or reservation, or, in other words, that absence of darkness is a quality of God. The force which in has in this context may have to be described; for example, ‘he has nothing in common with darkness (or with what is dark, or with anything dark)’ or “no … at all.” The Greek uses two negative forms which reinforce each other, thus expressing an emphatic negation.

† Darkness: it has been pointed out “that ‘dark’ and ‘darkness’ is a universal symbol, but in different parts of the world it has different meanings and areas of connotation..: (1) the spirit world, (2) the realm of death, (3) ignorance, (4) secrecy and mystery, and (5) moral depravity and willful corruption,” and that possible renderings are often of three types, “(a) the darkness of night, (b) darkness used by shadows, including even the intense shade of a deep forest, and (c) the darkness of an enclosure such as a house without windows or a cave”.

In the present verse the noun is used with a widely encompassing meaning, as a symbol for everything that is not of God. The translator should choose a rendering that may be applied in a wide variety of ways. In several languages a term for the darkness of night (type [a] above) appears to meet this requirement. Where necessary one may shift to ‘what is not light,’ but more radical semantic adjustments are not advisable; compare the remarks on light. Other occurrences can be found in 1.6; 2.8-9, 11.

Quoted with permission from Haas, C., de Jonge, M. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on The First Letter of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1972. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

If we say: namely, to ourselves, or to each other.

If: In verses 6, 8, 10 the force of this conjrunction (in the Greek ean with the subjunctive of the aorist or the present tense) is “expectational” rather than conditional or hypothetical. It introduces something which under certain circumstances and from a given standpoint in the present is expected to occur. The rendering to be used should therefore have the meaning of ‘when,’ ‘whenever,’ ‘in the circumstances that.’

We: the opinion quoted is that of the false teachers (see Introduction pages 3 and following), who have found adherents among the persons whom the author is addressing. He might have said “if a man says,” “if you say,” or even “if some among you say,” but he prefers to use what one commentator has called “the preacher’s ‘we,’ ” the use of which is not only a matter of tact, particularly appropriate where error has to be corrected, but also belongs to the language of the Church as a fellowship. Accordingly we has inclusive force here. The same holds true of the other occurrences of the pronoun of the first person plural throughout 1.5–2.11.

We have fellowship with him, or, specifying the pronoun, ‘with God.’ For possible renderings of fellowship see comments on 1 John 1.3.

What the writer’s opponents are saying here is in stark contrast with what they are actually doing (see next clause). The words may again be rendered as indirect or as direct discourse. In the latter case a shift to a compound subject may be preferable; compare, for example, ‘God and I are of one mind,’ as one American Indian language has it.

While we walk in darkness is the second part of the sentence governed by the conjunction if, or ‘when.’ It is in strong contrast to the first part, we walk (referring to behavior, see below) contrasting to “we say,” and in darkness (which is emphatic by position) contrasting to “in fellowship with him.” Consequently the Greek connective kai and has adversative force, expressed by such renderings as ‘and yet,’ ‘but,’ ‘but at the same time,’ ‘while,’ ‘whereas.’ To bring out the emphatic position of “in darkness,” one may say ‘and yet it is in darkness that we walk,’ ‘but our life has only darkness.’

† Walk is a semitic use of the verb in the sense of ‘to pursue a way of life,’ ‘to live,’ ‘to conduct oneself.’ In some languages other verbs are employed with the same metaphorical value; for example, ‘to be sitting,’ ‘to move about’ (in a language where ‘to walk’ would suggest a contrast to running). In this sense the verb occurs also in 1.7 and 2.6, 12. And compare “to follow” in 2 John 4 and 3 John 3-4, where the Greek literally has “to walk in,” and 2 John 6, where it has “to walk according to.”

The word darkness refers here mainly to the ethical aspects of the term. This has been made explicit in some versions; compare, for example, ‘in darkness doing evil,’ ‘doing dark deeds.’

Having mentioned in verse 6a the opinion and behavior of his opponents, John proceeds in verse 6b to unmask them in the light of the true gospel of the eyewitnesses. He shows that their deeds are a negation of what they pretend to be and should be.

The structure of the sentence corresponds to that of verse 8bc and verse 10bc, each of which has also two parts, the first positive, the second negative. This stylistic feature is important as indication of the discourse structure of this section. It should preferably be preserved in translation.

We lie: in the Johannine writings the verb lie refers to all that is not of God, not only words but also attitudes or actions that are not in keeping with God’s will. Accordingly it may have to be rendered ‘we do and say what is false/untrue.’ In the present context, however, the reference is primarily to words, because the verb parallels “we say,” and because the wider meaning would result in a tautology, the next clause also containing a reference to attitude and action; hence ‘we tell lies,’ ‘we say what is false/untrue.’

For lie in this meaning some languages build an expression on a term that has the basic meaning of ‘crooked.’ Others use an idiomatic phrase such as ‘to be able to spread rumors,’ ‘to chop water’ (as a fitting symbol for the telling of fabricated stories), ‘to speak much,’ ‘to let the mouth fall,’ ‘to rack loose one’s mouth.’

(We) do not live according to the truth is in Greek literally “we do not do the truth.” The phrase is formed in imitation of a Hebrew idiom. Similar constructions of the verb do followed by an abstract noun occur rather often in this Letter; compare “to do the will of God” (2.17), “to do righteousness” (2.29; 3.7, 10), “to do sin” (3.4, 8-9), “to do lawlessness” (3.4), “to do what is pleasing before him” (3.22), “to do his commandments” (5.2). The idiom serves to express regular action in accordance with the quality inherent in the noun (compare Translators’ Translation on 3.4).

A literal rendering of this construction is in many places impossible, including the present verse; hence the rendering found here in Revised Standard Version, or such renderings as ‘to keep to the truth,’ ‘to do (or follow) what is true,’ ‘to obey the truth.’ If further adjustment is required, one may say something like ‘to act according to God’s will,’ ‘to do what is pleasing to God.’

† Truth means what is in keeping with fact, then, what conforms to a standard, namely, the standard of God’s will. In the latter meaning it is used here and in 2.21a; 2 John 4; 3 John 3-4, 12. Several languages have a specific term for truth. In others the rendering is more or less descriptive; for example, ‘what is known,’ ‘what can be known,’ ‘what is belief-worthy.’ In some the rendering has the basic meaning ‘straight.’

Quoted with permission from Haas, C., de Jonge, M. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on The First Letter of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1972. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

After the proposition of the false teachers has been mentioned and refuted (verse 6), the present verse describes what the true Christian should do and will experience.

If (here and in verse 9) is conditional.

We walk in the light expresses the opposite of “we walk in darkness” in verse 6b. The clause structures parallel each other. This parallelism should be preserved as much as possible when the clauses have to be restructured.

Light means here the radiance of light (compare comments on 1 John 1.5), for the reference seems to be to the domain of light, to a place or situation that is clear or bright. Accordingly the rendering to be used is in some languages different from that in verse 5; for example, ‘we walk where it is bright.’

As he is in the light indicates how, that is, to what degree, “we” should walk in the light. They should do so as completely and fully as God is, or exists, in the light, compare such a rendering as ‘whenever we live in the same light/brightness in which God eternally is/exists.’

Logically speaking there is a discrepancy between this clause and “God is light” in verse 5, for God cannot be the light and at the same time exist in the light. But one should bear in mind that John does not intend to give logical definitions but is hinting at aspects of a reality that by definition is undefinable. Accordingly the translator should not try to harmonize the two statements but leave the discrepancy as it stands. He may even be compelled to widen the discrepancy, namely, in those languages where the rendering of light here must differ from that used in verse 5; see above.

We have fellowship with one another. At first sight one might expect here “we have fellowship with God.” But that was not what was required by the situation confronting John. The false teachers whose opinions he is quoting and refuting in these verses boasted of their fellowship and communion with God, but they neglected the fellowship with men (compare the Introduction, page 4). John wants to remind them that they cannot have fellowship with God unless they have fellowship with other Christians.

The verb form we have is in the present tense. This is to indicate that the reference is to a reality existing at the moment of speaking.

The blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. This last clause of verse 7 serves to remind the reader that the Christian’s true relationship with God and man is made possible by Jesus’ death. At the same time the reference to sin forms the transition to the next verses (1.8–2.2), where John refutes his opponents’ claim of being without sin.

The statement made in this clause was probably a standing phrase in the Christian congregation. Its wording must be seen against the background of the sacrificial rites of Israel, as mentioned, for example, in Numbers 19. In those rites an animal was killed as sacrifice, and its blood was sprinkled on objects or men that had become ritually polluted. Thus they were made clean, that is, their ritual stains were removed.

John uses these sacrificial terms symbolically here, applying them (as the Letter to the Hebrews does more fully) to Jesus’ sacrificial, redemptive death and its results with regard to men’s moral stains, that is, their sins. The context is such that this symbolical meaning can be easily understood. Therefore one can, in most receptor languages, use a literal rendering, if necessary adding a footnote giving further explanation and a reference to the Old Testament background. See also TBT, 22.104f, 197l.

However, in some languages a literal rendering is undesirable or impossible. Then one must indicate somehow that blood stands for the shedding of blood, and ultimately for death; hence such renderings as ‘the shed blood of Jesus…,’ ‘the fact that Jesus … has shed his own blood,’ ‘because Jesus … died, shedding his own blood,’ or simply ‘the death of Jesus…,’ ‘because Jesus … died.’ By the same token “cleanses” may have to become ‘takes away,’ ‘removes,’ ‘causes to cease.’

The name Jesus has to be transliterated, of course. To take Isa (the Arabic form of “Jesus”) as the basis of transliteration is, as a rule, not advisable, especially because the connotation Isa has in Islam is the negation of what “Jesus” means in Christianity.

The appositional phrase his son is added to remind the reader that it is God who is acting in Jesus’ life and death; compare verse 9, where it is God himself who “will make us clean from all our wrongdoing” (Good News Translation). The pronominal reference may have to be specified; hence, ‘God’s Son.’

Cleanses us from all sin: the present tense expresses duration and serves to indicate that the cleansing is going on. The construction with “from” often has to be adjusted; for example, ‘cleanses us, lets (us) be free from all sin,’ ‘makes us clean, and causes to cease all sin,’ ‘takes away all stains from us, that is to say, all our sins,’ or simply ‘removes all our sins.’

All sin may primarily refer either to all sinful deeds, or to the quality of being sinful, here probably the former. If one has to shift from a nominal to a verbal construction, one may say something like ‘cleanses everyone of us, whenever he has sinned.’

† It may be necessary to make explicit the religious connotation of cleanses, or ‘causes to be clean’, for example, by saying ‘to make clean before God.’ The concept “clean/pure” is sometimes better expressed negatively; for example, by phrases like ‘without dirt,’ ‘not stained,’ ‘not mixed.’ The term to be used should not refer to the removal or neutralizing of magic power acquired by a person as the result of his taking part in religious ceremonies.

† Sin implies both the violation of a standard ultimately set by God, and the personal responsibility of the sinner. In several languages rather generic terms are used to render the word; for example, ‘bad deed,’ ‘mistake,’ and the like. Such renderings are often quite acceptable, provided that the context sufficiently indicates the specific connotation required. But in other cases it is preferable to indicate at least some of the specific components of meaning, using terms or phrases such as ‘evil in the head-heart,’ ‘what comes from a bad heart,’ ‘what makes one guilty,’ all three showing the personal involvement; or ‘leaving the road,’ ‘missing the mark,’ both adding the concept of not conforming to a standard. It is interesting to note that the last-mentioned expression is also at the base of the Greek verb for “to sin.” For further details see A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Mark on 1.4.

Verses 8 and 9 contain the second quotation and refutation of the false teachers; compare the introductory remarks on 1.5–2.2.

Quoted with permission from Haas, C., de Jonge, M. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on The First Letter of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1972. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

We have no sin: constructions of “to have” with nouns like “fellowship” (1.3, 6-7), “sin” (1.8), “life” (3.15; 5.12-13), “love” (4.16), “joy” (3 John 4), “confidence” (2.28; 3.21; 4.17; 5.14) often occur in the Johannine writings. The verb then refers to inner possession and shows a person to be in a certain condition, or to have a certain emotion, which influences him continually. Thus “to have sin” means that one has the source and principle of sin in oneself and is continually dominated by it. The expression does not refer here to sinful deeds (as it did in verse 7) but to a sinful attitude that is the source of sinful deeds, and implies personal guilt. Some ways to render the clause are “we claim to be sinless” (New English Bible), ‘we have no evil in our head-hearts,’ ‘we are persons who never sin.’

We deceive ourselves. The Greek verb occurs often in the passive, meaning “to be led astray.” Here the reflexive form is used in order to show that the persons concerned are held responsible; hence, for example, ‘we are leading ourselves astray,’ ‘we take the wrong road,’ or better, to bring out the metaphorical use, ‘we are leading our hearts astray,’ ‘our thoughts follow the wrong road,’ ‘we are turning our heads,’ ‘we are fooling ourselves (literally causing ourselves to be stupid).’

The truth is not in us. The present tense has durative force. The clause means to say that the truth is not in us and this will remain so. Thus the situation of the false teachers, who claim to know God, is shown to be quite the contrary of what they claim.

† Truth is used here (and often elsewhere in the Johannine writings) with another shade of meaning than in verse 6, namely, as a reference to God’s own truthfulness. God is truthful in that his acting and speaking cover each other completely. Thus God’s truth constitutes his real being and revealing activity, giving life and freedom to man. Therefore he keeps faith with his worshippers, doing what he has promised; compare, for example, Exo 34.6. The term is used in this sense also in 2.4, 21b; 3.19; 4.6; 2 John 1b, 2; 3 John 8; compare also 1 John 5.7.

† In the writings of John the phrase “to be in” serves to express a very close and intimate relationship of Christ with God or God with Christ (John 17.21), of men with God or God with men (1 John 2.5; 5.20; and 4.4), of an aspect of God’s being (as represented by Christ) with men (here), or of the devil with the world (4.4). Compare also “to abide in” (see comments on 2.6), which emphasizes the continuity of the relationship. Some renderings used are ‘to live in,’ ‘to be one with,’ ‘to belong to,’ ‘to be before,’ ‘to be in the presence of,’ ‘to be in the innermost of’ (that is, to agree with, to act according to the will of, TBT, 20.79-80, 1969).

In the present case it is often preferable to change the structure of the clause, taking “we” as the subject. This leads to such renderings as ‘we are not familiar with the truth (of God),’ ‘we do not have the truth (of God) in our heart,’ ‘we have not the true One/God in our heart.’

Quoted with permission from Haas, C., de Jonge, M. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on The First Letter of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1972. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .