1 John 2:4

2:4 The one who says “I have come to know God” ¹  and yet does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in such a person.

1 John 2:9

2:9 The one who says he is in the light but still hates ²  his fellow Christian ³  is still in the darkness.

1 John 3:6

3:6 Everyone who resides ⁴  in him does not sin; ⁵  everyone who sins has neither seen him nor known him.

John 8:54-55

8:54 Jesus replied, ⁶  “If I glorify myself, my glory is worthless. ⁷  The one who glorifies me is my Father, about whom you people ⁸  say, ‘He is our God.’ 8:55 Yet ⁹  you do not know him, but I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, ¹⁰  I would be a liar like you. But I do know him, and I obey ¹¹  his teaching. ¹² 

[2:4]  ¹ tn Grk “know him.” See the note on the phrase “know God” in 1 John 2:3 for explanation.

[2:9]  ² tn 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.

[2:9]  ³ tn 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.

[3:6]  ⁴ tn 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.

[3:6]  ⁵ tn 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).

[8:54]  ⁶ tn Grk “Jesus answered.”

[8:54]  ⁷ tn Grk “is nothing.”

[8:54]  ⁸ tn The word “people” is not in the Greek text, but is supplied in English to clarify the plural Greek pronoun and verb.

[8:55]  ⁹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “Yet” to indicate the contrast present in the context.

[8:55]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “If I say, ‘I do not know him.’”

[8:55]  ¹¹ tn Grk “I keep.”

[8:55]  ¹² tn Grk “his word.”