First John: 1 John 3:20-Addressing the Interpretative Problems of 1 John 3:20 Lesson # 132

1 John 3:19 By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him 20 for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything. (ESV)

1 John 3:20 contains several difficult interpretative problems, which revolve primarily around the two hoti clauses which appear in this verse.

Interpreters have struggled to understand the relationship between these two clauses.

There are four major approaches to solving this problem.

First, some interpret the first hoti (ὅτι) in this verse as causal, which would indicate that the clause it is introducing is presenting the basis or the reason for the preceding clause at the end of verse 19, which asserts by obeying the command to love one another, the believer at any time will assure their hearts before God.

They interpret an ellipsis before the second hoti, which is introducing a direct object clause.

The phrase “we know” would supply the ellipsis.

Therefore, this interpretation would express the idea that we will assure our hearts before God because if our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts.

The second approach interprets the phrase hoti ean (ὅτι ἐάν) at the beginning of verse 20 as meaning “whenever” and the second hoti as causal.

This would express the idea that we can assure our hearts before God by obeying the command to love one another whenever our hearts condemn us or convict us because God is greater than our heart.

The third interpretation views both occurrences of hoti as the object of the preceding verb peithō which appears at the end of verse 19.

The second hoti would be resumptive after the intervening conditional clause and one or the other is not translated.

This would express the idea that if our hearts condemn us, then we will assure our hearts that God is greater than our hearts.

The fourth approach to the problem interprets in 1 John 3:19-20 both occurrences of hoti as causal.

This view expresses the idea that by loving one another the believer will assure their hearts before God because if our hearts condemn us, it is because God is greater than our hearts and will condemn us ever more harshly.

I interpret the first use of hoti in verse 20 as epexegetical and the second as causal.

Furthermore, I view the first hoti clause as introducing the protasis of a fifth class with the apodosis being composed of the result clause which completes verse 19 and asserts that as a result of obeying the command to love one another, the believer will at any time assure their hearts before God in prayer.

This interpretation would express the idea that as a result of obeying the command to love one another, the believer will at any time assure their hearts before God, namely, if at any time or whenever their hearts should convict them as a result of not doing so because God is greater than their hearts.

God is greater than the believer’s heart or specifically, their conscience since the command to love one another which if obeyed provides the believer assurance originates with Him and not their conscience.

Thus, John is flip flopping the usual order in a conditional clause since usually the protasis appears first followed by the apodosis.

If we reverse John’s order, it would read: if at any time or whenever our hearts convict us, then, we will at any time assure our hearts before God as a result of obeying the command to love one another.

Or, we can say: if at any time or whenever our hearts convict us, by obeying the command to love one another we will at any time assure our hearts before God.

Therefore, the first hoti is epexegetical which means that it is introducing a clause which explains or clarifies or completes the result clause at the end of verse 19, which asserts that as a result of obeying the command to love one another the believer will at any time assure their hearts before God in prayer.

It is important to remember that this result clause at the end of verse 19 is actually presenting the result of the first declarative statement which appears in the verse.

It asserts that by means of loving one’s fellow-believer they can at any time confirm that they are manifesting God’s attribute of love which originates from obedience to the truth.

Steven Smalley commenting on the relationship between these two clauses, writes that they can be taken in one of two ways: “(a) Taking the two vv as one continuous sentence, the sense is controlled by v 19a: ‘obedience to the love command is the means by of reassuring the troubled conscience.’ (b) If a break is made at the end of verse 19a, which is feasible, the thought is then primarily determined by v 19b; ‘the troubled conscience can be reassured by the all-knowing God.’”[1]

My view is that the first approach Smalley mentions is the correct one.

This is indicated by a couple of factors.

First, the declarative statement at the beginning of verse 19 and the clause introduced by the conjunction kai which follows it, are connected because the latter presents the result of the former.

Secondly, the first hoti clause at the beginning of verse 20 is the protasis of a third class condition.

The apodosis for this conditional clause is found in the result clause at the end of verse 19.

The second hoti clause presents the result of the principle communicated by the third class condition.

The last statement in verse 20 introduced by the conjunction kai identifies specifically for the reader what John means by the causal clause.

Therefore, it is my view that every statement contained verses 19 and 20 are all connected and compose a single thought or communicate a spiritual principle.

In fact, verses 19 and 20 as well as verses 14-18 are connected to these two verses since they all emphasize the importance in obeying the command to love one another.

Now, the spiritual principle communicated in these verses is that the problem of the believer’s conscience being convicted because of sin as a result of refusing to provide food, shelter and clothing for a fellow-believer in need of such things is resolved by obeying the command to love one another.

In other words, the problem of a guilty conscience is resolved by obeying the command to love one another.

This obedience is manifested by providing food, shelter and clothing for a fellow-believer when they are in need of such things.

This obedience also manifests God’s attribute of love since the Holy Spirit manifests this attribute in the life of the believer when they obey His Spirit inspired command to love one another.

Now, there are several different interpretations with regards to the meaning of this second hoti clause in verse 20. W. Hall Harris writes “(1) Many interpreters have taken this to mean that even if believers stand condemned by their own consciences (because of their failure to love fellow Christians) God, because he knows everything, will be merciful to forgive everything (as far as the believer is concerned). Since the context looks at the believer’s behavior (performing deeds of love toward fellow-believers) as a basis for believers’ assurance that they are indeed God’s children, there is some support for this view. (2) Others, who hold to a more ‘severe’ interpretation of these verses, see God’s omniscience here as as allusion to the fact that, if believers stand condemned by their own consciences (for their failure to love fellow Christians) God, because he knows all things, will be even more strict and demanding in judgment and will condemn them all the more. (3) A third and more neutral view is also possible: God, because he knows all things, will show no partiality, but will be more objective in judgment than even believers’ own consciences. He will be merciful to those who (as believers) have loved their fellow Christians, and severe toward those who (typified by the opponents who as unbelievers have failed to love their fellow believers) have exercised hatred (rather than love) toward their fellows. In either case, God will be completely fair and impartial in his judgment. Since in the two passages in the Gospel of John which refer to Jesus’ omniscience (2:24 and 21:17) one mentions a positive judgment and the other a negative one, the third (more neutral) view is probably to be preferred; God’s omniscience leads to a judgment which in some instances will be positive and in others negative.”[2]

My view is that in this second hoti John is asserting that whenever the believer’s conscience is convicted, they will experience assurance in God’s presence as a result of obeying the command to love one another because God is superior to their conscience.

He is superior in the sense that He is a superior judge of the believer’s actions.

In other words, if the believer is obeying the command to love one another, then they can have assurance in God’s presence because this command originated with God and not with their conscience.

Therefore, God is not only superior to the believer’s conscience because He is the Creator of the conscience but also because the command to love one another which provides the believer assurance in His presence originated with Him and not with the believer’s conscience.

He is the believer’s final judge and not their conscience.

[1] Smalley, Stephen S., Word Biblical Commentary volume 51; 1, 2, 3 John; page 202; Word Books Publisher; Waco, Texas, 1984.

[2] Harris, W. Hall, 1, 2, 3 John: An Exegetical Commentary, The Letters of John: Comfort and Counsel for a Church in Crisis; page 70; Biblical Studies Press 1999.