Witness, Confession, and Abiding (I Jn 4:13-15)

Navigation

[1:1-4] • [1:5-10] • [2:1-2] • [2:3-6] • [2:7-11] • [2:12-14]

[2:15-17] • [2:18-27] • [2:28-29] • [3:1-3] • [3:4-10] • [3:11-18]

[3:19-24] • [4:1-6] • [4:7-12] • [4:13-15] • [4:16-21] • [5:1-3]

[5:4-5] • [5:6-12] • [5:13-15] • [5:16-17] • [5:18-20] • [5:21]

[After the Last Verse]

Text and Translation

---

Graphical Grammar

[Coming soon! Check back for update]

Weighty Words

Notice how the perfect tense repeatedly appears in this section. John emphasizes completed actions whose effects remain active in the present.

• δέδωκεν — 3rd sing perf. act. ind. ▶ δίδωμι: “has given” (with ongoing significance)
• τεθεάμεθα — 1st pl. perf. mid. ind. ▶ θεάομαι: “we have seen” (with ongoing significance)
• ἀπέσταλκε — 3rd sing perf. act. ind. ▶ ἀποστέλλω: the sending is completed, with abiding result

Syntax Sense

Verse 13 – Why ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος αὐτοῦ may feel hard.

How do we best render ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος αὐτοῦ in English? The English challenge seems to be that none of the obvious English prepositions feel quite right here. That’s because ἐκ + genitive is doing something English doesn’t mark with a single preposition.

Greek is expressing source-of-gift, not merely instrument (“by”), location (“in”), or accompaniment (“with”). John is saying God has given us something that comes out of / derives from / consists in his Spirit. That’s why “by his Spirit” feels too instrumental, “from his Spirit” feels spatial but closer, and “of his Spirit” sounds archaic but is actually very close to the Greek.

It is helpful to examine what the Greek is not saying. It is important for narrowing options. ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος does not mean “through the Spirit” (διά), “by means of the Spirit” (instrumental emphasis), or even “in the Spirit” (ἐν). If you have some discomfort with “by,” you are justified. It subtly shifts agency to method rather than origin.

John’s emphasis is the gift is real and given (δέδωκεν), its origin is God, and its nature/source is the Spirit. The Spirit is not merely the channel; the Spirit is what is given (at least in part).

That pushes us toward source language, not instrument language. Let’s rank the best English options, in order of closeness to the Greek sense.

• Option 1 (closest, slightly elevated) – “…because he has given to us from his Spirit.”
  • Pros:
    • Closest to ἐκ
    • Preserves source
    • Grammatically straightforward
  • Cons:
    • Slightly unusual English
    • But still intelligible and biblical in tone
• Option 2 (traditional, slightly archaic but accurate) – “…because he has given to us of his Spirit.”
  • Pros:
    • Very close semantically
    • Longstanding English biblical usage
    • Avoids instrumental misreading
  • Cons:
    • Slightly archaic
    • Some modern readers stumble on “of”
• Option 3 (least precise) – “…because he has given to us by his Spirit.”
  • Pros:
    • Smooth English
    • Very common
  • Cons:
    • Shifts meaning toward agency/instrument
    • Flattens John’s emphasis on source
    • This is the weakest option semantically.

As you can see from my translation, I went with option 2. Here is why. It feels to me that “given from His Spirit,” sounds like the Spirit equipped believers from something in His inventory. Rather, the Spirit is what He gave us. So, “of” seems to me to say that God took something from the Spirit and gave it to us.

Verse 14 – τὸν υἱόν … σωτῆρα is it “as” vs. “to be”?

Just like earlier verses we are faced with a double accusative: τὸν υἱόν … σωτῆρα (object + complement).

• τὸν υἱόν is the direct object
• σωτῆρα is the object complement (role / identity)

The Greek is saying the Father sent the Son as savior of the world. This is not two objects, it’s not apposition, and it’s not a predicate nominative (because it’s still accusative). Here again, the English needs some glue between these words.

Rendering it with “to be the savior of the world” is good English and theologically accurate, but it does add a slight telic nuance (“with the purpose of becoming”) that is not explicitly marked in the Greek. It has the benefit of being smooth to read in English, slightly emphasizes purpose or result, and, while not wrong, leans a bit interpretive. That’s because John did not use ἵνα or an infinitive of purpose.

Rendering it with “as the savior of the world,” however, is closer to the Greek construction, emphasizes identity/role, and is less interpretive. We also do not translate verses in a vacuum. This rendering mirrors previous renderings of the object–complement structure. As a translator, you do not have to be slavishly consistent with similar structures, but deviations from your prior treatment should not be arbitrary and should be based on the semantic situation and surrounding discourse.

Verse 15 – Objects, Complements, and ἐν αὐτῷ

Without trying to turn this Syntax Sense into a grammar textbook chapter, I want to discuss a technical grammar point that will pay reading dividends when you are aware of it. But you don’t have to memorize the term! It has to do with the distinctions between objects (like Greek accusatives or in some cases Greek datives) and complements. A complement is just a word, prepositional phrase, or possibly a whole clause that completes the thought of the sentence. An object is a type of complement. But, even though we see them the most, objects are not the only type of complement.

Let’s take the clause “ὁ Θεὸς ἐν αὐτῷ μένει.” You may observe that there is no accusative word related to μένει. “Of course!,” you may think, because μένει is intransitive. Fair enough, but readers often seem trained to find objects after verbs: the quest to find out what completes the thought of this sentence.

That brings us to the prepositional phrase. What purpose does it serve? Well, if you thought that it’s the object, you would be wrong but you’re probably thinking about it the right way. The prepositional phrase here completes the thought of the clause—not as an object, but as a complement.

In this clause, ἐν αὐτῷ is a locative prepositional phrase. Where an object receives the action of the verb (she baked a cake), this prepositional phrase completes the sentence-thought by answering the question “where does the abiding take place?” Grammarians call this “a locative prepositional complement.” You can also call it, more generally, a prepositional complement of an intransitive verb. Honestly, you don’t have to call it anything. Just know that some groups of words in a sentence complete the thought other than an accusative/object.

Demystifying the Discourse

This is an especially relational passage interweaving both testimony and the fact of the Spirit’s indwelling presence to declare some core truths:

1. We know we abide in Him because He has given us of His Spirit;
2. The apostolic witness confirms the Father sent the Son;
3. Confession of Jesus as Son of God reveals mutual abiding; and
4. The Spirit, the witness, the confession, and the abiding all mutually reinforce one another.

John’s main point that the Spirit, the witness, the confession, and the abiding all mutually reinforce one another is brought together with the internal evidence of the Spirit, the apostolic testimony, and relational abiding. It is founded on—sewn together, to stick with the metaphor—the Christological confession. That confession is the focal point of the entire Gospel message, of course, but John develops its relational implications with unusual depth. He repeatedly returns to the confession that Jesus is the Son of God—not merely as a doctrinal statement, but as a living relational reality tied to abiding, witness, assurance, and life in God.

Your turn!

• Compare this passage to Revealed Identity (I Jn 3:1-3) and to Purpose, Provision, and Practice (I Jn 2:1-2). Do you see thematic, structural, or discourse relationships across this arc? Watch especially for repeated conceptual language and recurring relational patterns in the Greek text. What develops, repeats, intensifies, or changes?
• As you wrestled with ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος αὐτοῦ in verse 13, which option did you select (or did you discover another)? Why did you choose that option?
• You might observe a kind of “sing-song” feeling from repetition of “God” at clause boundaries, not from anything problem in the Greek. Greek tolerates (and often prefers) this kind of balance; English hears it as slightly clunky. Is there a way in English to smooth out the first clause so that it’s not so sing-songy and does not alter meaning?

---

Previous passage: 4:7-12 | Next passage: 4:16-21

Return to TBWM – I John

See complete translation of I John here.

---