translation_id: net-engnet

label: NET translator note

text: The ἵνα ( Jina ) clause is best understood (1) as epexegetical (or explanatory), clarifying the love ( ἀγάπην , agaphn ) that the Father has given to believers. Although it is possible (2) to regard the ἵνα as indicating result, the use of ποταπήν ( potaphn , “what sort of”) to modify ἀγάπην suggests that the idea of “love” will be qualified further in the following context, and this qualification is provided by the epexegetical ἵνα clause.


text: “Indeed” is not in the Greek text but is supplied to indicate emphasis.


label: NET textual note

text: The phrase καὶ ἐσμεν ( kai esmen , “and we are”) is omitted in 049 69 Ï . There seems to be no theological reason to omit the words. This has all the earmarks of a classic case of homoioteleuton, for the preceding word ( κληθῶμεν , klhqwmen , “we should be called”) ends in - μεν ( -men ). tn The indicative mood indicates that the verb ἐσμέν ( esmen ) at the end of 3:1 a is not governed by the ἵνα ( Jina ) and does not belong with the ἵνα clause, since this would have required a subjunctive. If the verb ἐσμέν were subjunctive, the force of the clause would be “that we should be called children of God, and be (children of God).” With ἐσμέν as indicative, the clause reads “that we should be called children of God, and indeed we are (children of God).”


text: Lexically it is clear that this phrase indicates reason, but what is not clear is whether (1) τοῦτο ( touto ) refers to what follows, (2) to what precedes, or (3) to both (as with the ἐν τοῦτο [ en touto ] phrases throughout 1 John). Διὰ τοῦτο ( dia touto ) occurs 15 times in the Gospel of John, and a pattern emerges which is so consistent that it appears to be the key to the usage here. Six times in the Gospel of John ( 5:16, 18; 8:47; 10:17; 12:18, 39 ) the phrase refers to what follows, and in each of these instances an epexegetical ὅτι ( Joti ) clause follows. Nine times in John (1:31, 6:65, 7:21-22, 9:23, 12:27, 13:11, 15:19, 16:15, 19:11) the phrase refers to what precedes, and in none of these instances is it followed by a ὅτι clause. The phrase διὰ τοῦτο is used three times in the Johannine Epistles. In two of these ( 1 John 4:5 , 3 John 10 ) there is no ὅτι clause following, and so the διὰ τοῦτο should refer to preceding material. Here in 3:1 there is an epexegetical ὅτι clause following, so the διὰ τοῦτο should (unless it is the only exception in the Gospel of John and the Johannine Epistles) refer to what follows, that is, to the ὅτι clause itself. This is indicated by the colon in the translation.


text: The subject of the third person singular passive verb ἐφανερώθη ( efanerwqh ) in 3:2 is the following clause τί ἐσόμεθα ( ti esomeqa ): “Beloved, now we are children of God, and what we shall be has not yet been revealed.” sn What we will be. The opponents have been revealed as antichrists now ( 2:19 ). What believers will be is to be revealed later . In light of the mention of the parousia in 2:28 , it seems likely that an eschatological revelation of the true character of believers is in view here.


text: The Byzantine text, the Syriac Peshitta, the Bohairic Coptic, and one ms of the Sahidic Coptic supply δέ ( de ) after οἴδαμεν ( oidamen ) in 3:2 b. Additions of coordinating conjunctions such as δέ are predictable variants; this coupled with the poor external credentials suggests that this addition is not likely to be original. tn The relationship of 3:2 b to 3:2 a is difficult. It seems best to regard this as a case of asyndeton, although the Byzantine text, the Syriac Peshitta, the Bohairic Coptic, and some mss of the Sahidic Coptic supply δέ ( de ) after οἴδαμεν ( oidamen ) in 3:2 b. This addition is not likely to be original, but it does reflect a tendency among scribes to see an adversative (contrastive) relationship between 3:2 a and 3:2 b. This seems to be an accurate understanding of the relationship between the clauses from a logical standpoint: “and what we shall be has not yet been revealed; but we know that whenever he should be revealed, we shall be like him.”


text: The first ὅτι ( Joti ) in 3:2 follows οἴδαμεν ( oidamen ), a verb of perception, and introduces an indirect discourse clause which specifies the content of what believers know: “that whenever it should be revealed, we shall be like him.”


text: In this context ἐάν ( ean ) does not indicate (1) uncertainty about whether or not what believers will be shall be revealed, but rather (2) uncertainty about the exact time the event will take place. In the Koine period ἐάν can mean “when” or “whenever” and is virtually the equivalent of ὅταν ( Jotan ; see BDAG 268 s.v. ἐάν 2). It has this meaning in John 12:32 and 14:3 . Thus the phrase here should be translated, “we know that whenever it is revealed.”


text: Many take the understood subject (“he”) of φανερωθῇ ( fanerwqh ) as a reference to Jesus Christ, because the same verb was used in 2:28 in reference to the parousia (second advent). In the immediate context, however, a better analogy is ἐφανερώθη τί ἐσόμεθα ( efanerwqh ti esomeqa ) in 3:2 a. There the clause τί ἐσόμεθα is the subject of the passive verb: “ what we shall be has not yet been revealed.” From a grammatical standpoint it makes better sense to see the understood subject of φανερωθῇ as “it” rather than “he” and as referring back to the clause τί ἐσόμεθα in 3:2 a. In the context this makes good sense: “Beloved, now we are children of God, and what we shall be has not yet been revealed. We know that whenever it shall be revealed , we shall be like him, because we shall see him just as he is.” This emphasizes the contrast in the verse between the present state (“not yet been revealed”) and the future state (“shall be revealed”) of believers, and this will of course take place at the parousia.


text: The second ὅτι ( Joti ) in 3:2 is best understood as causal, giving the reason why believers will be like God: “we shall be like him, because we shall see him just as he is.”


text: “Focused” is not in the Greek text, but is supplied for clarity.


text: Grk “that one.” Context indicates a reference to Jesus here. The switch from αὐτός ( autos ) to ἐκείνος ( ekeinos ) parallels 1 John 2:6 (see note there). Since purity of life is mentioned in the context, this almost certainly refers to Jesus in his earthly life and ministry as the example believers should imitate (a major theme of the author throughout 1 John).


text: Grk “and.”


text: Grk “that one.” The context makes it clear that this is a reference to Jesus, because the reader is told “he was revealed in order that he might take away sins.” The connection with Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world in John 1:29 provides additional confirmation that the previous use of ἐκεῖνος ( ekeinos ) in 3:3 b should also be understood as a reference to Jesus, as 2:6 was. sn In Johannine thought it is Jesus , the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world ( John 1:29 ).


text: The ἵνα ( Jina ) clause gives the purpose of Jesus’ self-revelation as he manifested himself to the disciples and to the world during his earthly life and ministry: It was “to take away sins.”


text: Here the verb μένω ( menw ) refers to the permanence of relationship between Jesus and the believer, as in 2:27 and 2:28 . It is clear that Jesus is the referent of the phrase ἐν αὐτῷ ( en autw ) because he is the subject of the discussion in v. 5 .


text: The interpretive problem raised by the use of the present tense ἁμαρτάνει ( Jamartanei ) in this verse (and ποιεῖ [ poiei ] in 3:9 as well) is that (a) it appears to teach a sinless state of perfection for the true Christian, and (b) it appears to contradict the author’s own statements in 2:1-2 where he acknowledged that Christians do indeed sin. (1) One widely used method of reconciling the acknowledgment in 2:1-2 that Christians do sin with the statements in 3:6 and 3:9 that they do not is expressed by M. Zerwick ( Biblical Greek §251). He understands the aorist to mean “commit sin in the concrete, commit some sin or other” while the present means “be a sinner, as a characteristic «state».” N. Turner ( Grammatical Insights , 151) argues essentially the same as Zerwick, stating that the present tense ἁμαρτάνει is stative (be a sinner) while the aorist is ingressive (begin to be a sinner, as the initial step of committing this or that sin). Similar interpretations can be found in a number of grammatical works and commentaries. (2) Others, however, have questioned the view that the distinction in tenses alone can convey a “habitual” meaning without further contextual clarification, including C. H. Dodd ( The Johannine Epistles [MNTC], 79) and Z. C. Hodges (“1 John,” BKCNT , 894). B. Fanning ( Verbal Aspect [OTM], 215-17) has concluded that the habitual meaning for the present tense cannot be ruled out, because there are clear instances of habitual presents in the NT where other clarifying words are not present and the habitual sense is derived from the context alone. This means that from a grammatical standpoint alone, the habitual present cannot be ruled out in 1 John 3:6 and 9 . It is still true, however, that it would have been much clearer if the author had reinforced the habitual sense with clarifying words or phrases in 1 John 3:6 and 9 if that is what he had intended. Dodd’s point, that reliance on the distinction in tenses alone is quite a subtle way of communicating such a vital point in the author’s argument, is still valid. It may also be added that the author of 1 John has demonstrated a propensity for alternating between present and aorist tenses for purely stylistic reasons (see 2:12 ). sn Does not sin. It is best to view the distinction between “everyone who practices sin” in 3:4 and “everyone who resides in him” in 3:6 as absolute and sharply in contrast. The author is here making a clear distinction between the opponents, who as moral indifferentists downplay the significance of sin in the life of the Christian, and the readers, who as true Christians recognize the significance of sin because Jesus came to take it away ( 3:5 ) and to destroy it as a work of the devil ( 3:8 ). This argument is developed more fully by S. Kubo (“ I John 3:9 : Absolute or Habitual?” AUSS 7 [1969]: 47-56), who takes the opponents as Gnostics who define sin as ignorance. The opponents were probably not adherents of fully developed gnosticism, but Kubo is right that the distinction between their position and that of the true Christian is intentionally portrayed by the author here as a sharp antithesis . This explanation still has to deal with the contradiction between 2:1-2 and 3:6-9 , but this does not present an insuperable difficulty. The author of 1 John has repeatedly demonstrated a tendency to present his ideas antithetically, in “either/or” terms, in order to bring out for the readers the drastic contrast between themselves as true believers and the opponents as false believers. In 2:1-2 the author can acknowledge the possibility that a true Christian might on occasion sin, because in this context he wishes to reassure his readers that the statements he has made about the opponents in the preceding context do not apply to them. But in 3:4-10 , his concern is to bring out the absolute difference between the opponents and his readers, so he speaks in theoretical rather than practical terms which do not discuss the possible occasional exception, because to do so would weaken his argument.


text: Grk “that one.” Context indicates a reference to Jesus here. As with the previous uses of ἐκεῖνος ( ekeinos ) by the author of 1 John ( 2:6; 3:3, 5 ), this one refers to Jesus, as the reference to “the Son of God” in the following verse ( 3:8 ) makes clear.


text: The present tense verb has been translated as an extending-from-past present (a present of past action still in progress). See ExSyn 520.


text: Here εἰς τοῦτο ( eis touto ) states the purpose for the revelation of God’s Son. However, the phrase offers the same difficulty as all the ἐν τούτῳ ( en toutw ) phrases in 1 John: Does it refer to what precedes or to what follows? By analogy with the ἐν τούτῳ construction it is probable that the phrase εἰς τοῦτο here refers to what follows: There is a ἵνα ( Jina ) clause following which appears to be related to the εἰς τοῦτο , and in fact is resumptive (that is, it restates the idea of “purpose” already expressed by the εἰς τοῦτο ). Thus the meaning is: “For this purpose the Son of God was revealed: to destroy the works of the devil.”


text: In the Gospel of John λύσῃ ( lush ) is used both literally and figuratively. In John 1:27 it refers to a literal loosing of one’s sandal-thong, and in John 2:19 to a destruction of Jesus’ physical body which was understood by the hearers to refer to physical destruction of the Jerusalem temple. In John 5:18 it refers to the breaking of the Sabbath, in John 7:23 to the breaking of the law of Moses, and in John 10:35 to the breaking of the scriptures. The verb is again used literally in John 11:44 at the resurrection of Lazarus when Jesus commands that he be released from the graveclothes with which he was bound. Here in 1 John 3:8 the verb means, with reference to “the works of the devil,” to “destroy, bring to an end, abolish.” See BDAG 607 s.v. λύω 4 and F. Büchsel, TDNT 4:336.


text: The imagery expressed here ( σπέρμα αὐτοῦ , sperma autou , “his seed”) clearly refers to the action of the male parent in procreation, and so “fathered” is the best choice for translating γεννάω ( gennaw ; see 2:29 ).


text: The problem of the present tense of ποιεῖ ( poiei ) here is exactly that of the present tense of ἁμαρτάνει ( Jamartanei ) in 3:6 . Here in 3:9 the distinction is sharply drawn between “the one who practices sin” in 3:8 , who is of the devil, and “the one who is fathered by God” in 3:9 , who “does not practice sin.” See S. Kubo (“ I John 3:9 : Absolute or Habitual?” AUSS 7 [1969]: 47-56) for a fuller discussion of the author’s argument as based on a sharp antithesis between the recipients (true Christians) and the opponents (heretics). sn Does not practice sin. Again, as in 3:6 , the author is making a clear distinction between the opponents, who as moral indifferentists downplay the significance of sin in the life of the Christian, and the recipients, who as true Christians recognize the significance of sin because Jesus came to take it away ( 3:5 ) and to destroy it as a work of the devil ( 3:8 ). This explanation still has to deal with the apparent contradiction between the author’s statements in 2:1-2 and those here in 3:9 , but this is best explained in terms of the author’s tendency to present issues in “either/or” terms to bring out the drastic contrast between his readers, whom he regards as true believers, and the opponents, whom he regards as false. In 2:1-2 the author can acknowledge the possibility that a true Christian might on occasion sin, because in this context he wishes to reassure his readers that the statements he has made about the opponents in the preceding context do not apply to them. But in 3:4-10 , his concern is to bring out the absolute difference between the opponents and his readers, so he speaks in theoretical terms which do not discuss the possible occasional exception, because to do so would weaken his argument.


text: Both the first and second ὅτι ( Joti ) in 3:9 are causal. The first gives the reason why the person who is begotten by God does not practice sin (“because his seed resides in him).” The second gives the reason why the person who is begotten by God is not able to sin (“because he has been begotten by God).”


text: Grk “his”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


text: The closest meaning for σπέρμα ( sperma ) in this context is “male generating seed” (cf. BDAG 937 s.v. 1 .b), although this is a figurative rather than a literal sense. Such imagery is bold and has seemed crudely anthropomorphic to some interpreters, but it poses no more difficulty than the image of God as a male parent fathering Christians that appears in John 1:13 and is behind the use of γεννάω ( gennaw ) with reference to Christians in 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, and 18 .


text: “Thus” is not in the Greek text, but is supplied to bring out the resultative force of the clause in English.


text: Once again there is the problem (by now familiar to the interpreter of 1 John) of determining whether the phrase ἐν τούτῳ ( en toutw ) in 3:10 refers (1) to what precedes or (2) to what follows. If it refers to what precedes, it serves to conclude the unit which began with 2:28 . The remainder of 3:10 would then form a transition to the following material (another “hinge” passage). On the other hand, if the phrase ἐν τούτῳ refers to what follows, then the entirety of 3:10 is a summary statement at the end of 2:28-3:10 which recapitulates the section’s major theme ( conduct is the clue to paternity ), and provides at the same time a transition to the theme of loving one’s brother which will dominate the following section ( 3:11-24 ). Although R. E. Brown ( Epistles of John [AB], 416) prefers to see the phrase as referring to the preceding material, it makes better sense to refer it to the remainder of 3:10 that follows, and see the entirety of 3:10 as both a summary of the theme of the preceding section 2:28-3:10 and a transition to the following section 3:11-24 .


text: See note on the term “fellow Christian” in 2:9 . sn Does not love his fellow Christian. The theme of loving one’s fellow Christian appears in the final clause of 3:10 because it provides the transition to the second major section of 1 John, 3:11-5:12 , and specifically to the following section 3:11-24 . The theme of love will dominate the second major section of the letter (see 1 John 4:8 ).


text: It could be argued (1) that the ὅτι ( Joti ) at the beginning of 3:11 is grammatically subordinate to the preceding statement at the end of 3:10 . As BDF §456.1 points out, however, “Subordination with ὅτι and διότι is often very loose…and must be translated ‘for.’” Thus (2) ὅτι assumes an inferential sense, standing at the beginning of a new sentence and drawing an inference based upon all that has preceded. This is confirmed by the structural parallel between the present verse and 1:5 .


text: The word “gospel” is not in the Greek text but is supplied to clarify the meaning. See the notes on the words “gospel” and “message” in 1 John 1:5 .


text: See the note on the word “message” in 1 John 1:5 , where this same phrase occurs.


text: For the Greek verb σφάζω ( sfazw ) L&N 20.72 states, “to slaughter, either animals or persons; in contexts referring to persons, the implication is of violence and mercilessness – ‘to slaughter, to kill.’” As a reflection of this nuance, the translation “brutally murdered” has been used.


text: Grk “brothers,” but the Greek word may be used for “brothers and sisters” or “fellow Christians” as here (cf. BDAG 18 s.v. ἀδελφός 1, where considerable nonbiblical evidence for the plural ἀδελφοί [ adelfoi ] meaning “brothers and sisters” is cited). Since the author is addressing his readers directly at this point, “brothers and sisters” (suggesting a degree of familial endearment) has been employed in the translation at this point, while elsewhere the less direct “fellow Christians” has been used (cf. v. 14 ).


text: The first ὅτι ( Joti ) clause, following a verb of perception, introduces an indirect discourse clause giving the content of what the readers are assumed to know: that they have passed over from death to life, that is, that they possess eternal life. The author gives a similar reassurance to his readers in 5:13 . Alternation between the verbs οἶδα ( oida ) and γινώσκω ( ginwskw ) in 1 John is probably a matter of stylistic variation (of which the writer is extremely fond) rather than indicative of a subtle difference in meaning.


text: This verb essentially means “to transfer from one place to another, go/pass over ,” according to BDAG 638 s.v. μεταβαίνω 1. sn In John 13:1 the same Greek verb translated crossed over here is used to refer to Jesus’ departure from this world as he returns to the Father. Here it is used figuratively to refer to the believer’s transfer from the state of (spiritual) death to the state of (spiritual) life. This use is paralleled in John 5:24 , where Jesus states, “the person who hears my message and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned, but has crossed over (same verb) from death to life.”


text: The second ὅτι ( Joti ) clause in 3:14 is also related to οἴδαμεν ( oidamen ), but in this case the ὅτι is causal, giving the reason why the readers know that they have passed from death to life: because they love the brothers.


text: See note on the phrase “fellow Christian” in 2:9 . sn Because we love our fellow Christians. This echoes Jesus’ words in John 13:35 , where he states, “by this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” As in 1 John 2:3 and 5 , obedience becomes the basis for assurance. But the relationship between loving one’s fellow Christian ( Grk “brother”) and possessing eternal life goes beyond a proof or external test. Our love for our fellow Christians is in fact a form of God’s love for us because as far as the author of 1 John is concerned, all love comes from God (cf. 4:7-11 ). Therefore he can add the next line of 3:14 , “the one who does not love remains in death.” Why? Because such a person does not have God’s love residing in them at all. Rather, this person can be described as a “murderer” – as the following verse goes on to do. Note also that the author’s description here of the person who does not love as remaining in death is another way of describing a person who remains in darkness, which is a description of unbelievers in John 12:46 . This provides further confirmation of the spiritual state of the author’s opponents in 2:9-11 .


text: See note on the phrase “fellow Christian” in 2:9 .


text: The verb μένω ( menw ) in 3:15 refers to a spiritual reality (eternal life) which in this case does not reside in the person in question. To speak in terms of eternal life not “residing” in such an individual is not to imply that at some time in the past this person did possess eternal life and subsequently lost it, however. The previous verse ( 3:14 ) makes it clear that the individual under discussion here has “remained” in death (the realm of spiritual death) and so has never possessed eternal life to begin with, no matter what he may have claimed. Taken together with the use of μένω in 3:14 , the use here implies that the opponents have “remained” in death all along, and have not ever been genuine believers. Thus “residing” rather than “remaining” is used as the translation for μένουσαν ( menousan ) here.


text: Here the phrase ἐν τούτῳ ( en toutw ) is followed by a ὅτι ( Joti ) clause which is epexegetical (or explanatory), and thus ἐν τούτῳ refers to what follows.


text: Grk “that one.” Context indicates a reference to Jesus. The mention of the sacrificial death in 3:16 ( ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκεν , Juper hmwn thn yuchn autou eqhken ) points to Jesus as the referent here. (This provides further confirmation that ἐκεῖνος [ ekeinos ] in 2:6; 3:3, 5, and 7 refers to Jesus.)


text: Here βίος ( bios ) refers to one’s means of subsistence – material goods or property (BDAG 177 s.v. 2 ). sn Note the vivid contrast with Jesus’ example in the preceding verse: He was willing to lay down his very life, but the person in view in 3:17 is not even willing to lay down part of his material possessions for the sake of his brother.


text: Here a subjective genitive, indicating God’s love for us – the love which comes from God – appears more likely because of the parallelism with “eternal life” ( ζωὴν αἰώνιον , zwhn aiwnion ) in 3:15 , which also comes from God. sn The love of God. The author is not saying that the person who does not love his brother cannot love God either (although this may be true enough), but rather that the person who does not love his brother shows by this failure to love that he does not have any of the love which comes from God ‘residing’ in him (the Greek verb used is μένω [ menw ]). Once again, conduct is the clue to paternity.


text: Once again there is the problem of deciding whether the phrase ἐν τούτῳ ( en toutw ) refers (1) to what precedes or (2) to what follows. When an explanatory or epexegetical ὅτι ( Joti ) clause follows, and the ὅτι clause is not grammatically unrelated to the phrase ἐν τούτῳ , then the ἐν τούτῳ is best understood as referring to what follows. Here in 3:19-20 there are no less than three ὅτι clauses that follow, one in 3:19 and two in 3:20 , and thus there is the difficulty of trying to determine whether any one of them is related to the ἐν τούτῳ phrase in 3:19 . It is relatively easy to eliminate the first ὅτι clause (in 3:19 ) from consideration, because it is related not to ἐν τούτῳ but to the verb γνωσόμεθα ( gnwsomeqa ) as an indirect discourse clause giving the content of what believers know (“that we are of the truth”). As far as the two ὅτι clauses in 3:20 are concerned, it is difficult to see how believers could know that they belong to the truth (19a) by means of either, since the first speaks of a situation where they are under self-condemnation (“if our heart condemns us…”) and the second ὅτι clause seems to give a further explanation related to the first (“that God is greater than our heart…”). Therefore it seems better to understand the phrase ἐν τούτῳ in 3:19 as referring to the preceding context, and this makes perfectly good sense, because 3:18 concludes with a reference to the righteous deeds with which believers are to love one another, which are produced by the truth. sn By this refers to the righteous deeds mentioned at the end of 3:18 , the expressions of love. It is by doing these deeds that believers assure themselves that they belong to the truth, because the outward action reflects the inward reality of their relationship with God. Put another way, ‘conduct is the clue to paternity.’


text: The verb πείθω ( peiqw ) in the active voice (with the exception of the second perfect and pluperfect) means (a) “to convince”; (b) “to persuade, appeal to”; (c) “to win over, strive to please”; or (d) “to conciliate, pacify, set at ease or rest” (see BDAG 791 s.v. πείθω ). Interpreters are generally divided between meaning (a) and meaning (d) for the verb in the present context, with BDAG opting for the latter (although it is pointed out that “the text is not in good order”). In any case the object of the verb πείθω in this context is καρδία ( kardia ), and this leads to further problems because the meaning of καρδία will affect one’s understanding of πείσομεν ( peisomen ) here.


text: Further difficulties are created by the meaning of καρδία ( kardia ) in 3:19 . Although it may be agreed that the term generally refers to the “center and source of the whole inner life, w. its thinking, feeling, and volition” (BDAG 508 s.v. l.b), this may be further subdivided into references to (a) “the faculty of thought…as the organ of natural and spiritual enlightenment,” that is, the mind; (b) “the will and its decisions”; (c) “the emotions, wishes, desires,” i.e., the emotions or feelings; or (d) “moral decisions, the moral life,” that is, the part of the individual where moral decisions are made, which is commonly called the conscience. Thus καρδία in 3:19 could refer to either the mind, the will, the emotions, or the conscience, and it is not transparently clear which concept the author has primarily in view. In light of the overall context, which seems to discuss the believer’s assurance of his or her standing before God ( ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ [ emprosqen autou ] in 3:19 and the mention of παρρησία [ parrhsia , “boldness” or “confidence”] in 3:21 ) it seems probable that the conscience , that aspect of one’s καρδία which involves moral choices and the guilt or approval for having made them, is primarily in view here. Thus the meaning “convince” is preferred for the verb πείθω ( peiqw ), since the overall subject seems to be the believer’s assurance of his or her standing before God, especially in the case when (v. 20 ) the believer’s conscience attempts to condemn him on account of sin.


text: Both ἔμπροσθεν ( emprosqen ) in 3:19 and ἐνώπιον ( enwpion ) in 3:22 are improper prepositions and both express the meaning “before” in the sense of “in the presence of.” (1) Some interpreters have tried to see a subtle distinction in meaning between the two in 3:19 and 22 , but (2) as BDF §214.6 points out, ἔμπροσθεν and ἐνώπιον , along with a third classical expression ἐναντίον ( enantion ), all refer to being in someone’s presence and are essentially interchangeable. There can be little doubt that once more the author’s fondness for stylistic variation in terminology is at work here.


text: The first ὅτι ( Joti ) in 3:20 may be understood either (1) as causal, “because if our heart condemns us,” or (2) as epexegetical (explanatory), “that if our heart condemns us.” There are two other instances of the combination ὅτι ἐάν ( Joti ean ) in 1 John, 3:2 and 5:14 . In 3:14 the ὅτι clearly introduces an indirect discourse (content) clause following οἴδαμεν ( oidamen ). In 5:14 the ὅτι is epexegetical to a preceding statement (“and this is the confidence [ ἡ παρρησία , Jh parrhsia ] which we have before him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us”). This is analogous to the present situation, and the subject under discussion (the believer’s confidence before God) is also similar (cf. 3:21-22 ). It is thus more likely, by analogy, that the first ὅτι clause in 3:20 , ὅτι ἐὰν καταγινώσκῃ ἡμῶν ἡ καρδία ( {oti ean kataginwskh Jhmwn Jh kardia ), should also be understood as epexegetical to the preceding clause, ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ πείσομεν τὴν καρδίαν ( emprosqen autou peisomen thn kardian , “and we convince our heart before him”).


text: In Deut 25:1 LXX καταγινώσκω ( kataginwskw ) means “to condemn” in a context where it is in opposition to δικαιοῦν ( dikaioun , “to acquit”). In Job 42:6 LXX (Symmachus) and Ezek 16:61 LXX (Symmachus) it is used of self-judgment or self-condemnation, and this usage is also found in the intertestamental literature (Sir 14:2). Testament of Gad 5:3 describes a person οὐχ ὑπ᾿ ἄλλου καταγινωσκόμενος ἀλλ᾿ ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας καρδίας ( ouc Jup ’ a[llou kataginwskomeno" all ’ Jupo th" idia" kardia" , “condemned not by another but by his own heart”). Thus the word has legal or forensic connotations, and in this context refers to the believer’s self-condemnation resulting from a guilty conscience concerning sin.


text: The use of two ὅτι ( Joti ) clauses in close succession is somewhat awkward, but this is nothing new for the author; and indeed he has twice previously used two ὅτι clauses in close proximity in 3:2 and 14 . In both those instances the second ὅτι was understood as causal, and (1) some interpreters would do the same here. Unless one understands both of the ὅτι clauses in 3:20 as causal, however (an option rejected based on the analogy with 5:14 , see the discussion in the note on “that” at the beginning of the present verse), the first ὅτι clause must be understood as parenthetical in order for the second to be causal. This results in an even more awkward construction. It seems most probable that (2) the second ὅτι clause in 3:20 should also be understood as epexegetical (explanatory), and resumptive to the first. The resultant meaning is as follows: “and we convince our heart before him, that if our heart condemns us, that God is greater than our heart and knows all things.”


text: The conjunction καί ( kai ) which begins 3:22 is epexegetical (explanatory), relating a further implication of the “confidence” ( παρρησίαν , parrhsian ) which believers have before God when their heart (conscience) does not condemn them. They can ask things of God with the expectation of receiving their requests.


text: The ὅτι ( Joti ) is clearly causal, giving the reason why believers receive what they ask.


text: The καί ( kai ) is epexegetical/explanatory (or perhaps resumptive) of the commandment(s) mentioned in the preceding verse.


text: This verse begins with the phrase καὶ αὕτη ἐστίν ( kai {auth estin ; cf. the similar phrase in 3:11 and 1:5 ), which is explained by the following ἵνα ( Jina ) clause, “that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ.” The ἵνα thus introduces a clause which is (1) epexegetical (explanatory) or (2) appositional. By analogy the similar phrase in 3:11 is also followed by an epexegetical ἵνα clause and the phrase in 1:5 by an epexegetical ὅτι ( Joti ) clause. sn His commandment refers to what follows – the commandment from God is to believe in his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another.


text: The verb μένω ( menw ) has been translated “resides” here because this verse refers to the mutual and reciprocal relationship between God and the believer. sn The verb resides ( μένω , menw ) here and again in the second clause of 3:24 refers to the permanence of relationship between God and the believer, as also in 2:6; 4:12, 13, 15, and 16 (3x).


text: Grk “in him.” In context this is almost certainly a reference to God (note the phrase “his Son Jesus Christ” in 3:23 ).


text: Grk “he.” In context this is almost certainly a reference to God (note the phrase “his Son Jesus Christ” in 3:23 ).


text: Once again there is the (by now familiar) question of whether the phrase ἐν τούτῳ ( en toutw ) refers to what precedes or to what follows. In this case, the following phrase ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος ( ek tou pneumato" ) explains the ἐν τούτῳ phrase, and so it refers to what follows.