Daniel 1:1-21

Daniel Finds Favor in Babylon

1:1 In the third ¹  year of the reign of King Jehoiakim of Judah, King Nebuchadnezzar ²  of Babylon advanced against Jerusalem ³  and laid it under siege. ⁴  1:2 Now the Lord ⁵  delivered ⁶  King Jehoiakim of Judah into his power, ⁷  along with some of the vessels ⁸  of the temple of God. ⁹  He brought them to the land of Babylonia ¹⁰  to the temple of his god ¹¹  and put ¹²  the vessels in the treasury of his god.

1:3 The king commanded ¹³  Ashpenaz, ¹⁴  who was in charge of his court officials, ¹⁵  to choose ¹⁶  some of the Israelites who were of royal and noble descent ¹⁷  – 1:4 young men in whom there was no physical defect and who were handsome, ¹⁸  well versed in all kinds of wisdom, well educated ¹⁹  and having keen insight, ²⁰  and who were capable ²¹  of entering the king’s royal service ²²  – and to teach them the literature and language ²³  of the Babylonians. ²⁴  1:5 So the king assigned them a daily ration ²⁵  from his royal delicacies ²⁶  and from the wine he himself drank. They were to be trained ²⁷  for the next three years. At the end of that time they were to enter the king’s service. ²⁸  1:6 As it turned out, ²⁹  among these young men ³⁰  were some from Judah: ³¹  Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. ³²  1:7 But the overseer of the court officials renamed them. He gave ³³  Daniel the name Belteshazzar, Hananiah he named Shadrach, Mishael he named Meshach, and Azariah he named Abednego. ³⁴ 

1:8 But Daniel made up his mind ³⁵  that he would not defile ³⁶  himself with the royal delicacies or the royal wine. ³⁷  He therefore asked the overseer of the court officials for permission not to defile himself. 1:9 Then God made the overseer of the court officials sympathetic to Daniel. ³⁸  1:10 But he ³⁹  responded to Daniel, “I fear my master the king. He is the one who has decided ⁴⁰  your food and drink. What would happen if he saw that you looked malnourished in comparison to the other young men your age? ⁴¹  If that happened, ⁴²  you would endanger my life ⁴³  with the king!” 1:11 Daniel then spoke to the warden ⁴⁴  whom the overseer of the court officials had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: 1:12 “Please test your servants for ten days by providing us with some vegetables to eat and water to drink. 1:13 Then compare our appearance ⁴⁵  with that of ⁴⁶  the young men who are eating the royal delicacies; ⁴⁷  deal with us ⁴⁸  in light of what you see.” 1:14 So the warden ⁴⁹  agreed to their proposal ⁵⁰  and tested them for ten ⁵¹  days.

1:15 At the end of the ten days their appearance was better and their bodies were healthier ⁵²  than all the young men who had been eating the royal delicacies. 1:16 So the warden removed the delicacies and the wine ⁵³  from their diet ⁵⁴  and gave them a diet of vegetables instead. 1:17 Now as for these four young men, God endowed them with knowledge and skill in all sorts of literature and wisdom – and Daniel had insight into all kinds of visions and dreams.

1:18 When the time appointed by the king arrived, ⁵⁵  the overseer of the court officials brought them into Nebuchadnezzar’s presence. 1:19 When the king spoke with them, he did not find among the entire group ⁵⁶  anyone like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, or Azariah. So they entered the king’s service. ⁵⁷  1:20 In every matter of wisdom and ⁵⁸  insight the king asked them about, he found them to be ten times ⁵⁹  better than any of the magicians and astrologers that were in his entire empire. 1:21 Now Daniel lived on until the first ⁶⁰  year of Cyrus the king.

Yakobus 2:1-26

Prejudice and the Law of Love

2:1 My brothers and sisters, ⁶¹  do not show prejudice ⁶²  if you possess faith ⁶³  in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. ⁶⁴  2:2 For if someone ⁶⁵  comes into your assembly ⁶⁶  wearing a gold ring and fine clothing, and a poor person enters in filthy clothes, 2:3 do you pay attention to the one who is finely dressed and say, ⁶⁷  “You sit here in a good place,” ⁶⁸  and to the poor person, “You stand over there,” or “Sit on the floor”? ⁶⁹  2:4 If so, have you not made distinctions ⁷⁰  among yourselves and become judges with evil motives? ⁷¹  2:5 Listen, my dear brothers and sisters! ⁷²  Did not God choose the poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom that he promised to those who love him? 2:6 But you have dishonored the poor! ⁷³  Are not the rich oppressing you and dragging you into the courts? 2:7 Do they not blaspheme the good name of the one you belong to? ⁷⁴  2:8 But if you fulfill the royal law as expressed in this scripture, ⁷⁵  “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” ⁷⁶  you are doing well. 2:9 But if you show prejudice, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as violators. ⁷⁷  2:10 For the one who obeys the whole law but fails ⁷⁸  in one point has become guilty of all of it. ⁷⁹  2:11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” ⁸⁰  also said, “Do not murder.” ⁸¹  Now if you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a violator of the law. 2:12 Speak and act as those who will be judged by a law that gives freedom. ⁸²  2:13 For judgment is merciless for the one who has shown no mercy. But mercy triumphs over ⁸³  judgment.

Faith and Works Together

2:14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, ⁸⁴  if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Can this kind of faith ⁸⁵  save him? ⁸⁶  2:15 If a brother or sister ⁸⁷  is poorly clothed and lacks daily food, 2:16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm and eat well,” but you do not give them what the body needs, ⁸⁸  what good is it? 2:17 So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead being by itself. 2:18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” ⁸⁹  Show me your faith without works and I will show you faith by ⁹⁰  my works. 2:19 You believe that God is one; well and good. ⁹¹  Even the demons believe that – and tremble with fear. ⁹² 

2:20 But would you like evidence, ⁹³  you empty fellow, ⁹⁴  that faith without works is useless? ⁹⁵  2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 2:22 You see that his faith was working together with his works and his faith was perfected by works. 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Now Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness,” ⁹⁶  and he was called God’s friend. ⁹⁷  2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 2:25 And similarly, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another way? 2:26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

1 Yohanes 4:1-21

Testing the Spirits

4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, ⁹⁸  but test ⁹⁹  the spirits ¹⁰⁰  to determine ¹⁰¹  if they are from God, because many false prophets ¹⁰²  have gone out into the world. 4:2 By this ¹⁰³  you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses ¹⁰⁴  Jesus as the Christ ¹⁰⁵  who has come in the flesh is from God, 4:3 but ¹⁰⁶  every spirit that does not confess ¹⁰⁷  Jesus ¹⁰⁸  is not from God, and this is the spirit ¹⁰⁹  of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now is already in the world.

4:4 You are from God, little children, and have conquered them, ¹¹⁰  because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. 4:5 They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world’s perspective and the world listens to them. 4:6 We are from God; the person who knows God listens to us, but ¹¹¹  whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this ¹¹²  we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit. ¹¹³ 

God is Love

4:7 Dear friends, let us love one another, because ¹¹⁴  love is from God, and everyone who loves ¹¹⁵  has been fathered ¹¹⁶  by God and knows God. 4:8 The person who does not love does not know God, because God is love. ¹¹⁷  4:9 By this ¹¹⁸  the love of God ¹¹⁹  is revealed in us: ¹²⁰  that God has sent his one and only ¹²¹  Son into the world so that we may live through him. 4:10 In this ¹²²  is love: not that ¹²³  we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice ¹²⁴  for our sins.

4:11 Dear friends, if God so loved us, then ¹²⁵  we also ought to love one another. ¹²⁶  4:12 No one has seen God at any time. ¹²⁷  If we love one another, God resides ¹²⁸  in us, and his love is perfected in us. ¹²⁹  4:13 By this ¹³⁰  we know that we reside in God ¹³¹  and he in us: in that he has given us of his Spirit. ¹³²  4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior ¹³³  of the world.

4:15 If anyone ¹³⁴  confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God resides ¹³⁵  in him and he in God. 4:16 And we have come to know and to believe ¹³⁶  the love that God has in us. ¹³⁷  God is love, and the one who resides ¹³⁸  in love resides in God, and God resides in him. 4:17 By this ¹³⁹  love is perfected with ¹⁴⁰  us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment, because just as Jesus ¹⁴¹  is, so also are we in this world. 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. ¹⁴²  The ¹⁴³  one who fears punishment ¹⁴⁴  has not been perfected in love. 4:19 We love ¹⁴⁵  because he loved us first.

4:20 If anyone says ¹⁴⁶  “I love God” and yet ¹⁴⁷  hates his fellow Christian, ¹⁴⁸  he is a liar, because the one who does not love his fellow Christian ¹⁴⁹  whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. ¹⁵⁰  4:21 And the commandment we have from him is this: that ¹⁵¹  the one who loves God should love his fellow Christian ¹⁵²  too.

[1:1]  ¹ sn The third year of the reign of Jehoiakim would be ca. 605 B.C. At this time Daniel would have been a teenager. The reference to Jehoiakim’s third year poses a serious crux interpretum, since elsewhere these events are linked to his fourth year (Jer 25:1; cf. 2 Kgs 24:1; 2 Chr 36:5-8). Apparently Daniel is following an accession year chronology, whereby the first partial year of a king’s reign was reckoned as the accession year rather than as the first year of his reign. Jeremiah, on the other hand, is following a nonaccession year chronology, whereby the accession year is reckoned as the first year of the king’s reign. In that case, the conflict is only superficial. Most modern scholars, however, have concluded that Daniel is historically inaccurate here.

[1:1]  ² sn King Nebuchadnezzar ruled Babylon from ca. 605-562 B.C.

[1:1]  ³ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

[1:1]  ⁴ sn This attack culminated in the first of three major deportations of Jews to Babylon. The second one occurred in 597 B.C. and included among many other Jewish captives the prophet Ezekiel. The third deportation occurred in 586 B.C., at which time the temple and the city of Jerusalem were thoroughly destroyed.

[1:2]  ⁵ tn The Hebrew term translated “Lord” here is אֲדֹנָי (’adonay).

[1:2]  ⁶ tn Heb “gave.”

[1:2]  ⁷ tn Heb “hand,” which is often used idiomatically for one’s power and authority. See BDB 390 s.v. יָד 2.

[1:2]  ⁸ tn Or “utensils”; or “articles.”

[1:2]  ⁹ tn Heb “house of God.”

[1:2]  ¹⁰ sn The land of Babylonia (Heb “the land of Shinar”) is another name for Sumer and Akkad, where Babylon was located (cf. Gen 10:10; 11:2; 14:1, 9; Josh 7:21; Isa 11:11; Zech 5:11).

[1:2]  ¹¹ tn Or “gods” (NCV, NRSV, TEV; also later in this verse). The Hebrew term can be used as a numerical plural for many gods or as a plural of majesty for one particular god. Since Nebuchadnezzar was a polytheist, it is not clear if the reference here is to many gods or one particular deity. The plural of majesty, while normally used for Israel’s God, is occasionally used of foreign gods (cf. BDB 43 s.v. אֱלֹהִים 1, 2). See Judg 11:24 (of the Moabite god Chemosh); 1 Sam 5:7 (of the Philistine god Dagon); 1 Kgs 11:33 (of the Canaanite goddess Astarte, the Moabite god Chemosh, and the Ammonite god Milcom); 2 Kgs 19:37 (of the Assyrian god Nisroch). Since gods normally had their own individual temples, Dan 1:2 probably refers to a particular deity, perhaps Marduk, the supreme god of Babylon, or Marduk’s son Nabu, after whom Nebuchadnezzar was named. The name Nebuchadnezzar means “Nabu has protected the son who will inherit” (HALOT 660 s.v. נְבוּכַדְרֶאצַּר). For a discussion of how temples functioned in Babylonian religion see H. Ringgren, Religions of the Ancient Near East, 77-81.

[1:2]  ¹² tn Heb “brought.” Though the Hebrew verb “brought” is repeated in this verse, the translation uses “brought…put” for stylistic variation.

[1:3]  ¹³ tn Or “gave orders to.” Heb “said to.”

[1:3]  ¹⁴ sn It is possible that the word Ashpenaz is not a proper name at all, but a general term for “innkeeper.” See J. J. Collins, Daniel (Hermeneia), 127, n. 9. However, the ancient versions understand the term to be a name, and the present translation (along with most English versions) understands the word in this way.

[1:3]  ¹⁵ sn The word court official (Hebrew saris) need not mean “eunuch” in a technical sense (see Gen 37:36, where the term refers to Potiphar, who had a wife), although in the case of the book of Daniel there was in Jewish literature a common tradition to that effect. On the OT usage of this word see HALOT 769-70 s.v. סָרֹיס.

[1:3]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “bring.”

[1:3]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “and from the seed of royalty and from the nobles.”

[1:4]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “good of appearance.”

[1:4]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “knowers of knowledge.”

[1:4]  ²⁰ tn Heb “understanders of knowledge.”

[1:4]  ²¹ tn Heb “who had strength.”

[1:4]  ²² tn Heb “to stand in the palace of the king.” Cf. vv. 5, 19.

[1:4]  ²³ sn The language of the Chaldeans referred to here is Akkadian, an East Semitic cuneiform language.

[1:4]  ²⁴ tn Heb “Chaldeans” (so KJV, NAB, NASB, NRSV). This is an ancient name for the Babylonians.

[1:5]  ²⁵ tn Heb “a thing of a day in its day.”

[1:5]  ²⁶ tn Heb “from the delicacies of the king.”

[1:5]  ²⁷ tn Or “educated.” See HALOT 179 s.v. I גדל.

[1:5]  ²⁸ tn Heb “stand before the king.”

[1:6]  ²⁹ tn Heb “and it happened that.”

[1:6]  ³⁰ tn Heb “among them”; the referent (the young men taken captive from Judah) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:6]  ³¹ tn Heb “the sons of Judah.”

[1:6]  ³² sn The names reflect a Jewish heritage. In Hebrew Daniel means “God is my judge”; Hananiah means “the Lord is gracious”; Mishael means “who is what God is?”; Azariah means “the Lord has helped.”

[1:7]  ³³ tc The LXX and Vulgate lack the verb here.

[1:7]  ³⁴ sn The meanings of the Babylonian names are more conjectural than is the case with the Hebrew names. The probable etymologies are as follows: Belteshazzar means “protect his life,” although the MT vocalization may suggest “Belti, protect the king” (cf. Dan 4:8); Shadrach perhaps means “command of Aku”; Meshach is of uncertain meaning; Abednego means “servant of Nego.” Assigning Babylonian names to the Hebrew youths may have been an attempt to erase from their memory their Israelite heritage.

[1:8]  ³⁵ tn Heb “placed on his heart.”

[1:8]  ³⁶ tn Or “would not make himself ceremonially unclean”; TEV “become ritually unclean.”

[1:8]  sn Various reasons have been suggested as to why such food would defile Daniel. Perhaps it had to do with violations of Mosaic law with regard to unclean foods, or perhaps it had to do with such food having been offered to idols. Daniel’s practice in this regard is strikingly different from that of Esther, who was able successfully to conceal her Jewish identity.

[1:8]  ³⁷ tn Heb “with the delicacies of the king and with the wine of his drinking.”

[1:9]  ³⁸ tn Heb “Then God granted Daniel loyal love and compassion before the overseer of the court officials.” The expression “loyal love and compassion” is a hendiadys; the two words combine to express one idea.

[1:10]  ³⁹ tn Heb “The overseer of the court officials.” The subject has been specified in the translation for the sake of clarity.

[1:10]  ⁴⁰ tn Heb “assigned.” See v. 5.

[1:10]  ⁴¹ tn Heb “Why should he see your faces thin from the young men who are according to your age?” The term translated “thin” occurs only here and in Gen 40:6, where it appears to refer to a dejected facial expression. The word is related to an Arabic root meaning “be weak.” See HALOT 277 s.v. II זעף.

[1:10]  ⁴² tn The words “if that happened” are not in the Hebrew text but have been added in the translation for clarity.

[1:10]  ⁴³ tn Heb “my head.” Presumably this is an implicit reference to capital punishment (cf. NCV, TEV, CEV, NLT), although this is not entirely clear.

[1:11]  ⁴⁴ sn Having failed to convince the overseer, Daniel sought the favor of the warden whom the overseer had appointed to care for the young men.

[1:13]  ⁴⁵ tn Heb “let our appearance be seen before you.”

[1:13]  ⁴⁶ tn Heb “the appearance of.”

[1:13]  ⁴⁷ tn Heb “delicacies of the king.” So also in v. 15.

[1:13]  ⁴⁸ tn Heb “your servants.”

[1:14]  ⁴⁹ tn Heb “he”; the referent (the warden mentioned in v. 11) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[1:14]  ⁵⁰ tn Heb “listened to them with regard to this matter.”

[1:14]  ⁵¹ sn The number ten is sometimes used in the OT as an ideal number of completeness. Cf. v. 20; Zech 8:23; Rev 2:10.

[1:15]  ⁵² tn Heb “fat of flesh”; KJV, ASV “fatter in flesh”; NASB, NRSV “fatter” (although this is no longer a sign of health in Western culture).

[1:16]  ⁵³ tn Heb “the wine of their drinking.”

[1:16]  ⁵⁴ tn The words “from their diet” are not in the Hebrew text but have been added in the translation for clarity.

[1:18]  ⁵⁵ tn Heb “at the end of the days which the king said to bring them.”

[1:19]  ⁵⁶ tn Heb “from all of them.”

[1:19]  ⁵⁷ tn Heb “stood before the king.”

[1:20]  ⁵⁸ tc The MT lacks the conjunction, reading the first word in the phrase as a construct (“wisdom of insight”). While this reading is not impossible, it seems better to follow Theodotion, the Syriac, the Vulgate, and the Sahidic Coptic, all of which have the conjunction.

[1:20]  ⁵⁹ tn Heb “hands.”

[1:21]  ⁶⁰ sn The Persian king Cyrus’ first year in control of Babylon was 539 B.C. Daniel actually lived beyond the first year of Cyrus, as is clear from 10:1. The purpose of the statement in 1:21 is merely to say that Daniel’s life spanned the entire period of the neo-Babylonian empire. His life span also included the early years of the Persian control of Babylon. However, by that time his age was quite advanced; he probably died sometime in the 530’s B.C.

[2:1]  ⁶¹ tn Grk “brothers.” See note on the phrase “brothers and sisters” in 1:2.

[2:1]  ⁶² tn Or “partiality.”

[2:1]  ⁶³ tn Grk “do not have faith with personal prejudice,” with emphasis on the last phrase.

[2:1]  ⁶⁴ tn Grk “our Lord Jesus Christ of glory.” Here δόξης (doxhs) has been translated as an attributive genitive.

[2:2]  ⁶⁵ tn The word for “man” or “individual” here is ἀνήρ (anhr), which often means “male” or “man (as opposed to woman).” But as BDAG 79 s.v. 2 says, “equivalent to τὶς someone.”

[2:2]  ⁶⁶ tn Grk “synagogue.” Usually συναγωγή refers to Jewish places of worship (e.g., Matt 4:23, Mark 1:21, Luke 4:15, John 6:59). The word can be used generally to refer to a place of assembly, and here it refers specifically to a Christian assembly (BDAG 963 s.v. 2.b.).

[2:3]  ⁶⁷ tn Grk “and you pay attention…and say,” continuing the “if” clauses from v. 2. In the Greek text, vv. 2-4 form one long sentence.

[2:3]  ⁶⁸ tn Or “sit here, please.”

[2:3]  ⁶⁹ tn Grk “sit under my footstool.” The words “on the floor” have been supplied in the translation to clarify for the modern reader the undesirability of this seating arrangement (so also TEV, NIV, CEV, NLT). Another option followed by a number of translations is to replace “under my footstool” with “at my feet” (NAB, NIV, NRSV).

[2:4]  ⁷⁰ tn Grk “have you not made distinctions” (as the conclusion to the series of “if” clauses in vv. 2-3).

[2:4]  ⁷¹ tn Grk “judges of evil reasonings.”

[2:5]  ⁷² tn Grk “brothers.” See note on the phrase “brothers and sisters” in 1:2.

[2:6]  ⁷³ tn This is singular: “the poor person,” perhaps referring to the hypothetical one described in vv. 2-3.

[2:7]  ⁷⁴ tn Grk “that was invoked over you,” referring to their baptism in which they confessed their faith in Christ and were pronounced to be his own. To have the Lord’s name “named over them” is OT imagery for the Lord’s ownership of his people (cf. 2 Chr 7:14; Amos 9:12; Isa 63:19; Jer 14:9; 15:16; Dan 9:19; Acts 15:17).

[2:8]  ⁷⁵ tn Grk “according to the scripture.”

[2:8]  ⁷⁶ sn A quotation from Lev 19:18 (also quoted in Matt 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14).

[2:9]  ⁷⁷ tn Or “transgressors.”

[2:10]  ⁷⁸ tn Or “stumbles.”

[2:10]  ⁷⁹ tn Grk “guilty of all.”

[2:11]  ⁸⁰ sn A quotation from Exod 20:14 and Deut 5:18.

[2:11]  ⁸¹ sn A quotation from Exod 20:13 and Deut 5:17.

[2:12]  ⁸² tn Grk “a law of freedom.”

[2:13]  ⁸³ tn Grk “boasts against, exults over,” in victory.

[2:14]  ⁸⁴ tn Grk “brothers.” See note on the phrase “brothers and sisters” in 1:2.

[2:14]  ⁸⁵ tn Grk “the faith,” referring to the kind of faith just described: faith without works. The article here is anaphoric, referring to the previous mention of the noun πίστις (pisti") in the verse. See ExSyn 219.

[2:14]  ⁸⁶ sn The form of the question in Greek expects a negative answer.

[2:15]  ⁸⁷ tn It is important to note that the words ἀδελφός (adelfos) and ἀδελφή (adelfh) both occur in the Greek text at this point, confirming that the author intended to refer to both men and women. See the note on “someone” in 2:2.

[2:16]  ⁸⁸ tn Grk “what is necessary for the body.”

[2:18]  ⁸⁹ tn There is considerable doubt about where the words of the “someone” end and where James’ reply begins. Some see the quotation running to the end of v. 18; others to the end of v. 19. But most punctuate as shown above. The “someone” is then an objector, and the sense of his words is something like, “Some have faith; others have works; don’t expect everyone to have both.” James’ reply is that faith cannot exist or be seen without works.

[2:18]  ⁹⁰ tn Or “from.”

[2:19]  ⁹¹ tn Grk “you do well.”

[2:19]  ⁹² tn Grk “believe and tremble.” The words “with fear” are implied.

[2:20]  ⁹³ tn Grk “do you want to know.”

[2:20]  ⁹⁴ tn Grk “O empty man.” Here the singular vocative ἄνθρωπε (anqrwpe, “man”) means “person” or even “fellow.” Cf. BDAG 82 s.v. ἄνθρωπος 8 which views this as an instance of rhetorical address in a letter; the pejorative sense is also discussed under the previous heading (7).

[2:20]  ⁹⁵ tc Most witnesses, including several important ones (א A C² P Ψ 33 Ï sy bo), have νεκρά (nekra, “dead”) here, while Ì⁷⁴ reads κενή (kenh, “empty”). Both variants are most likely secondary, derived from ἀργή (argh, “useless”). The reading of the majority is probably an assimilation to the statements in vv. 17 and 26, while Ì⁷⁴’s reading picks up on κενέ (kene) earlier in the verse. The external evidence (B C* 323 945 1739 sa) for ἀργή is sufficient for authenticity; coupled with the strong internal evidence for the reading (if νεκρά were original, how would ἀργή have arisen here and not in vv. 17 or 26?), it is strongly preferred.

[2:23]  ⁹⁶ sn A quotation from Gen 15:6.

[2:23]  ⁹⁷ sn An allusion to 2 Chr 20:7; Isa 41:8; 51:2; Dan 3:35 (LXX), in which Abraham is called God’s “beloved.”

[4:1]  ⁹⁸ sn 1 John 4:1-6. These verses form one of three units within 1 John that almost all interpreters consider a single unit and do not divide up (the other two are 2:12-14 and 15-17). The subject matter is so clearly different from the surrounding context that these clearly constitute separate units of thought. Since the Holy Spirit is not the only spirit active in the world, the author needs to qualify for the recipients how to tell if a spirit comes from God. The “test” is the confession in 4:2.

[4:1]  ⁹⁹ tn 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.”

[4:1]  ¹⁰⁰ sn Test the spirits. Since in the second half of the present verse the author mentions “false prophets” who have “gone out into the world,” it appears highly probable that his concept of testing the spirits is drawn from the OT concept of testing a prophet to see whether he is a false prophet or a true one. The procedure for testing a prophet is found in Deut 13:2-6 and 18:15-22. An OT prophet was to be tested on the basis of (a) whether or not his predictive prophecies came true (Deut 18:22) and (b) whether or not he advocated idolatry (Deut 13:1-3). In the latter case the people of Israel are warned that even if the prophet should perform an authenticating sign or wonder, his truth or falsity is still to be judged on the basis of his claims, that is, whether or not he advocates idolatry. Here in 1 John the idea of “testing the spirits” comes closer to the second OT example of “testing the prophets” mentioned above. According to 1 John 4:2-3, the spirits are to be tested on the basis of their christological confession: The person motivated by the Spirit of God will confess Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh, while the person motivated by the spirit of deceit will not confess Jesus and is therefore not from God. This comes close to the idea expressed by Paul in 1 Cor 12:3 where the person speaking charismatic utterances is also to be judged on the basis of his christological confession: “So I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus is cursed,’ and no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit.”

[4:1]  ¹⁰¹ tn The phrase “to determine” is not in the Greek text, but is supplied for clarity.

[4:1]  ¹⁰² tn “False prophets” refers to the secessionist opponents (compare 2:19).

[4:2]  ¹⁰³ tn 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 4:2b-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 4:2b-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.”

[4:2]  ¹⁰⁴ tn Or “acknowledges.”

[4:2]  ¹⁰⁵ tn This forms part of the author’s christological confession which serves as a test of the spirits. Many interpreters have speculated that the author of 1 John is here correcting or adapting a slogan of the secessionist opponents, but there is no concrete evidence for this in the text. Such a possibility is mere conjecture (see R. E. Brown, Epistles of John [AB], 492). The phrase may be understood in a number of different ways, however: (1) the entire phrase “Jesus Christ come in the flesh” may be considered the single object of the verb ὁμολογεῖ (Jomologei; so B. F. Westcott, A. Brooke, J. Bonsirven, R. E. Brown, S. Smalley, and others); (2) the verb ὁμολογεῖ may be followed by a double accusative, so that both “Jesus Christ” and “come in the flesh” are objects of the verb; the meaning would be “confess Jesus Christ as come in the flesh” (so B. Weiss, J. Chaine, and others). (3) Another possibility is to see the verb as followed by a double accusative as in (2), but in this case the first object is “Jesus” and the second is “the Christ come in the flesh,” so that what is being confessed is “Jesus as the Christ come in the flesh” (so N. Alexander, J. Stott, J. Houlden, and others). All three options are grammatically possible, although not equally probable. Option (1) has a number of points in its favor: (a) the parallel in 2 John 7 suggests to some that the phrase should be understood as a single object; (b) option (2) makes “Jesus Christ” the name of the preincarnate second Person of the Trinity, and this would be the only place in the Johannine literature where such a designation for the preincarnate Λόγος (Logos) occurs; and (c) option (3) would have been much clearer if Χριστόν (Criston) were accompanied by the article (ὁμολογεῖ ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν Χριστόν, Jomologei Ihsoun ton Criston). Nevertheless option (3) is preferred on the basis of the overall context involving the secessionist opponents: Their christological views would allow the confession of the Christ come in the flesh (perhaps in the sense of the Spirit indwelling believers, although this is hard to prove), but they would have trouble confessing that Jesus was (exclusively) the Christ incarnate. The author’s failure to repeat the qualifying phrases (Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, Criston en sarki elhluqota) in the negative repetition in 4:3a actually suggests that the stress is on Jesus as the confession the opponents could not or would not make. It is difficult to see how the parallel in 2 John 7 favors option (1), although R. E. Brown (Epistles of John [AB], 492) thinks it does. The related or parallel construction in John 9:22 (ἐάν τις αὐτὸν ὁμολογήσῃ Χριστόν, ean ti" auton Jomologhsh Criston) provides further support for option (3). This is discounted by R. E. Brown because the verb in John 9:22 occurs between the two accusative objects rather than preceding both as here (Epistles of John [AB], 493 – although Brown does mention Rom 10:9 as another parallel closer in grammatical structure to 1 John 4:2). Brown does not mention the textual variants in John 9:22, however: Both Ì⁶⁶ and Ì⁷⁵ (along with K, ˹³ and others) read 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.

[4:3]  ¹⁰⁶ tn 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.”

[4:3]  ¹⁰⁷ tn Or “does not acknowledge.”

[4:3]  ¹⁰⁸ tc 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.

[4:3]  ¹⁰⁹ tn “Spirit” is not in the Greek text but is implied.

[4:4]  ¹¹⁰ sn Them refers to the secessionist opponents, called “false prophets” in 4:1 (compare 2:19).

[4:6]  ¹¹¹ tn “But” supplied here to bring out the context. The conjunction is omitted in the Greek text (asyndeton).

[4:6]  ¹¹² tn 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.

[4:6]  ¹¹³ sn Who or what is the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit in 1 John 4:6? (1) Some interpreters regard the “spirits” in 4:6 as human spirits. Although 4:1a is ambiguous and might refer either to human spirits or spiritual beings who influence people, it is clear in the context that (2) the author sees behind the secessionist opponents with their false Christology the spirit of the Antichrist, that is, Satan (4:3b), and behind the true believers of the community to which he is writing, the Spirit of God (4:2). This is made clear in 4:4 by the reference to the respective spirits as the One who is in you and the one who is in the world.

[4:7]  ¹¹⁴ tn 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.

[4:7]  ¹¹⁵ tn 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.

[4:7]  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.

[4:7]  ¹¹⁶ tn 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).

[4:8]  ¹¹⁷ tn 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.

[4:9]  ¹¹⁸ tn 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.”

[4:9]  ¹¹⁹ tn 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.

[4:9]  ¹²⁰ tn 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.”

[4:9]  ¹²¹ sn Although the word translated one and only (μονογενής, monogenhs) is often rendered “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological bird called the Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant. 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus alone in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (τέκνα θεοῦ, tekna qeou), Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 18; 3:16, 18).

[4:10]  ¹²² tn 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.”

[4:10]  ¹²³ tn The two ὅτι (Joti) clauses are epexegetical to the phrase ἐν τούτῳ (en toutw) which begins the verse.

[4:10]  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.

[4:10]  ¹²⁴ sn As explained at 2:2, inherent in the meaning of the word translated atoning sacrifice (ἱλασμός, Jilasmos) is the idea of turning away the divine wrath, so that “propitiation” is the closest English equivalent. God’s love for us is expressed in his sending his Son to be the propitiation (the propitiatory sacrifice) for our sins on the cross. This is an indirect way for the author to allude to one of the main points of his controversy with the opponents: the significance for believers’ salvation of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry, including especially his sacrificial death on the cross. The contemporary English “atoning sacrifice” communicates this idea more effectively.

[4:11]  ¹²⁵ tn Grk “and.” The Greek conjunction καί (kai) introduces the apodosis of the conditional sentence.

[4:11]  ¹²⁶ tn 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.

[4:11]  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).

[4:12]  ¹²⁷ sn An allusion to John 1:18.

[4:12]  ¹²⁸ tn 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 4:13b. Since it refers to state and not to change of status it is here translated “resides” (see 2:6).

[4:12]  ¹²⁹ tn 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, 4:11a, 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 3:23b).

[4:13]  ¹³⁰ tn 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.”

[4:13]  sn By this we know. According to the author of 1 John, the Father’s giving of the indwelling Holy Spirit to the believer is one means of providing assurance to the believer of his relationship to God. This is what was also stated in 1 John 3:24b in essentially identical terms.

[4:13]  ¹³¹ tn Grk “in him.” Context indicates that the pronoun refers to God (see 4:12).

[4:13]  ¹³² sn The genitive of his Spirit here, like the phrase in 3:24, probably reflects a partitive nuance, so that the author portrays God as ‘apportioning’ his Spirit to individual believers. This leads to the important observation that the author is not particularly interested in emphasizing (1) the ongoing interior witness of the Holy Spirit (which is what the passage is often understood to mean) but is emphasizing (2) the fact that God has given the Spirit to believers, and it is this fact that gives believers assurance of their relationship to God. In other words, it is the fact that the Holy Spirit has been given to believers, rather than the ongoing interior testimony of the Holy Spirit within the believer, which is the primary source of the believer’s assurance.

[4:14]  ¹³³ tn 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.”

[4:15]  ¹³⁴ tn Grk “Whoever.”

[4:15]  ¹³⁵ tn 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.

[4:16]  ¹³⁶ tn 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.

[4:16]  ¹³⁷ tn The force of the preposition ἐν (en) in the phrase ἐν ἡμῖν (en Jhmin) in 4:16a is disputed: Although (1) “for” (in the sense of “on behalf of”) is possible and is a common English translation, the other uses of the same phrase in 4:9 (where it refers to God’s love for us) and 4:12 (where it refers to God’s indwelling of the believer) suggest that (2) the author intends to emphasize interiority here – a reference to God’s love expressed in believers. This is confirmed by the only other uses in 1 John of the verb ἔχω (ecw) with the preposition ἐν (3:15 and 5:10) both of which literally mean something in someone.

[4:16]  ¹³⁸ tn 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.”

[4:17]  ¹³⁹ tn 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 4:17b, meaning “love is perfected with us…in that just as he [Christ] is, so also are we in this world.” This makes logical sense, and 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 4:16b, and this also would make logical sense: “By this – by our residing in love so that we reside in God and he resides in us – is love brought to perfection with us.” This has the additional advantage of agreeing precisely with what the author has already said in 4:12: “If we love one another, God remains in us and his love is brought to perfection in us.” Thus option (3) is best, with the phrase ἐν τούτῳ referring to what precedes in 4:16b, 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.

[4:17]  ¹⁴⁰ tn 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).

[4:17]  sn To say love is perfected with us means “with regard to our actions in loving our brothers.”

[4:17]  ¹⁴¹ tn 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.

[4:18]  ¹⁴² sn The entire phrase fear has to do with punishment may be understood in two slightly different ways: (1) “fear has its own punishment” or (2) “fear has to do with [includes] punishment.” These are not far apart, however, and the real key to understanding the expression lies in the meaning of the word “punishment” (κόλασις, kolasis). While it may refer to torture or torment (BDAG 555 s.v. 1) there are numerous Koine references involving eternal punishment (2 Macc 4:38; T. Reu. 5:5; T. Gad 7:5) and this is also the use in the only other NT reference, Matt 25:46. In the present context, where the author has mentioned having confidence in the day of judgment (4:17), it seems virtually certain that eternal punishment (or fear of it) is what is meant here. The (only) alternative to perfected love, which results in confidence at the day of judgment, is fear, which has to do with the punishment one is afraid of receiving at the judgment. As 4:18b states, “the one who fears [punishment] has not been perfected in love.” It is often assumed by interpreters that the opposite to perfected love (which casts out fear) is imperfect love (which still has fear and therefore no assurance). This is possible, but it is not likely, because the author nowhere mentions ‘imperfect’ love, and for him the opposite of ‘perfected’ love appears to be not imperfect love but hate (cf. 4:20). In other words, in the antithetical (‘either/or’) categories in which the author presents his arguments, one is either a genuine believer, who becomes ‘perfected’ in love as he resides in love and in a mutually indwelling relationship with God (cf. 4:16b), or one is not a genuine believer at all, but one who (like the opponents) hates his brother, is a liar, and does not know God at all. This individual should well fear judgment and eternal punishment because in the author’s view that is precisely where such a person is headed.

[4:18]  ¹⁴³ tn Grk “punishment, and the person who fears.”

[4:18]  ¹⁴⁴ tn “Punishment” is not repeated in the Greek text at this point but is implied.

[4:19]  ¹⁴⁵ sn No object is supplied for the verb love (the author with his propensity for obscurity has left it to the readers to supply the object). The obvious objects that could be supplied from the context are either God himself or other believers (the brethren). It may well be that the author has both in mind at this point; the statement is general enough to cover both alternatives, although the following verse puts more emphasis on love for the brethren.

[4:20]  ¹⁴⁶ tn Grk “if anyone should say…”

[4:20]  ¹⁴⁷ tn “Yet” is supplied to bring out the contrast.

[4:20]  ¹⁴⁸ tn See note on the phrase “fellow Christian” in 2:9.

[4:20]  ¹⁴⁹ tn See note on the phrase “fellow Christian” in 2:9.

[4:20]  ¹⁵⁰ sn In 4:20 the author again describes the opponents, who claim to love God. Their failure to show love for their fellow Christians proves their claim to know God to be false: The one who does not love his fellow Christian whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

[4:21]  ¹⁵¹ tn 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.”

[4:21]  ¹⁵² tn See note on the phrase “fellow Christian” in 2:9.