Add parallel Print Page Options

21 I have not written to you that[a] you do not know the truth, but that[b] you do know it, and that[c] no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but the person who denies that Jesus is the Christ[d] ? This one is the antichrist: the person who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. The person who confesses the Son has the Father also.[e]

Read full chapter

Footnotes

  1. 1 John 2:21 tn The interpretation of the three ὅτι clauses in v. 21 is very difficult: (1) All three instances of ὅτι (hoti) may be causal (so NASB, NIV, NEB). (2) The first two may be causal while the third indicates content (declarative or recitative ὅτι, so KJV, RSV, TEV, NRSV). (3) However, it is best to take all three instances as indicating content because this allows all three to be subordinate to the verb ἔγραψα (egrapsa) as compound direct objects. The author writes to reassure his readers (a) that they do indeed know the truth (first two uses of ὅτι) and (b) that no lie is of the truth (third use).
  2. 1 John 2:21 tn See the note on the first occurrence of “that” in v. 21.
  3. 1 John 2:21 tn See the note on the first occurrence of “that” in v. 21.
  4. 1 John 2:22 tn Or “the Messiah”
  5. 1 John 2:23 tc The Byzantine text, with a handful of other mss (81 642 1175 2492 M), lacks the last eight words of this verse, “The person who confesses the Son has the Father also” (ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει, ho homologōn ton huion kai ton patera echei). Although shorter readings are often preferred (since scribes would tend to add material rather than delete it), if an unintentional error is likely, shorter readings are generally considered secondary. This is a classic example of such an unintentional omission: The τὸν πατέρα ἔχει of the preceding clause occasioned the haplography, with the scribe’s eye skipping from one τὸν πατέρα ἔχει to the other.