Last night I was reading in 1 John 5 with my wife in the GNT, and as we came across the second half of verse 1, there was a word that struck us a bit strange. I thought, "I know my English Bible doesn't say this", and indeed it didn't come to find out.

The ESV says: "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him." The Greek reads: "Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται, καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν γεννήσαντα ἀγαπᾷ τὸν γεγεννημένον ἐξ αὐτοῦ."

So, everyone who loves the Father will love those who are born of Him. Right? While that is true, it is not exactly what this verse says: And everyone who loves τὸν γεννήσαντα loves the one who is born (begotten) of Him. Who or what is τὸν γεννήσαντα?

This participle γεννήσαντα comes from the verb γεννάω (to beget, to give birth), and it just doesn't flow well into modern English translation here. It would read something like this: Everyone who loves he who begat (the begetter) loves the one who is born of Him. Does that sound strange? This is how Tyndale translated it, nearly 500 years ago, and it survived hundreds of years in the KJV as well. Even in Spanish this wording flows quite nicely (al que engendró), but in modern English...not so much. There is just no natural way to convey this for the 21st century American reader. So why "Father" in the modern translations? The "one who begets" a person is the Father, so I suppose this was substituted in order to take away some of the difficulty.

It is true that if we love the Father we will love those who are born of Him. It is true that the Father is the one who begets sinners unto new life. But looking at this verse literally, do we love "he who begat"? If we do, then we will love those who are begotten of Him. That is a different way of referring to God, but I like it. To me it possesses more weight and clarity and I will not view this verse the same from now on.

So as you may suspect, I prefer literal word-for-word renderings in translation. I find that they often shed the best light and are quite understandable. As you may have heard... "Understand Yoda perfectly well you can, even if natural English speak he does not..."

Once a sinner is saved he is a new creature, 2 Cor. 5:17. The domineering power and authority of sin has been broken and triumphed over, Romans 6. The Christian now practices righteousness as opposed to unrighteousness, 1 John 3. He walks down the narrow and constrained path that leads to life as opposed to the broad path leading to destruction, Matthew 7. However, the Christian walk and life is by no means easy! It will be full of trials and afflictions, all of which are necessary Acts 14:22; 2 Tim. 3:12, 1 Pe. 1:6. He will be hated by all, Matt. 10:22; 24:9; among many other things. Yet one of the most difficult aspects of the Christian pilgrimage on earth is being the prime target and prey of the Enemy who is the Devil, Accuser, and Slanderer, Rev. 12:10. His intent is only to steal, kill, destroy, and devour, Jn. 10:10; 1 Pe. 5:8. He is ruthless and vicious.

The Devil is also a tempter. We know that God does not tempt anyone, Ja. 1:13. This is exclusively the work of the Devil, and he is good at it. He tempted our Lord as a man, Mt. 4, yet every time He shined through victorious and without sin. One of the great comforts which we have as Christians is that our Lord though was tempted and had many trials, He never succumbed nor gave in, but pressed through every instance with complete patience and perfection. Because of His triumph in the face of adversary and temptation, He is able to help those (Christians) who are being tempted.

Hebrews 2:18 is usually referenced when speaking of these things, and rightfully so. And yet, two of the best English translations have translated and interpreted the first Greek clause in two very different ways. They read as follows:

ESV     For because he himself has suffered when tempted…
NAS     For since he himself was tempted in that which he suffered…

Can you see the difference in meaning and implication? Below is the clause in Greek, as well as the two possible translations. Though they may be grammatically possible, only one of them can be correct, and as usual, this is a matter of exegesis and context. So let’s throw all of our presuppositions, ideas, and thoughts out the window and look at the text as it is.