2:7-17  7 Beloved, this is not a command that is new I am writing to you, but a command that is old and that you were in possession of from the start. This command that is old is the message that you heard. 8 Let me repeat, a command that is new I am writing to you, something that is being realized in reference to him and to you, namely that the darkness is passing on its way and the genuine/true light already is shining. 9 The person who claims he is in the light and is hating his brother exists in the darkness until now. 10 The person who loves his brother stays in the light and a cause for tripping does not exist in him. 11 In contrast the person who hates his brother exists in the darkness and is walking in the darkness and does not know where he is going because this darkness has blinded his eyes.
12 I am writing to you, dear children (progeny), because your sins stand forgiven for you because of his name.
13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you have come to know the one who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you stand victorious over the evil one.
14. I wrote to you, dear children, because you have come to know the Father.
I wrote to you, fathers, because you have come to know the one who is from the beginning.
I wrote to you, young men, because you are strong and God’s message stays in you and you stand victorious over the evil one.
15 Stop loving the world-system and the things in the world-system. If someone is loving this world-system, the Father’s love does not exist in him, 16 because all that is in the world-system–the desire generated by the flesh and the desire generated by the eyes and the arrogance generated by life–is not from the Father, but is from the world-system. 17 And this world-system is disappearing and the desire it generates, but the person who does God’s will remains forever.

7 Ἀγαπητοί, οὐκ ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν ἀλλ’ ἐντολὴν παλαιὰν ἣν εἴχετε ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς· ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ παλαιά ἐστιν ὁ λόγος ὃν ἠκούσατε. 8 πάλιν ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑμῖν ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, ὅτι ἡ σκοτία παράγεται καὶ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνει. 9 Ὁ λέγων ἐν τῷ φωτὶ εἶναι καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ μισῶν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ ἐστὶν ἕως ἄρτι. 10 ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ φωτὶ μένει, καὶ σκάνδαλον ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν· 11 ὁ δὲ μισῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ ἐστὶν καὶ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ περιπατεῖ καὶ οὐκ οἶδεν ποῦ ὑπάγει, ὅτι ἡ σκοτία ἐτύφλωσεν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ.
12 Γράφω ὑμῖν, τεκνία, ὅτι ἀφέωνται ὑμῖν αἱ ἁμαρτίαι διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ.
13 γράφω ὑμῖν, πατέρες, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς.
γράφω ὑμῖν, νεανίσκοι, ὅτι νενικήκατε τὸν πονηρόν.
14 ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, παιδία, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν πατέρα.
ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, πατέρες, ὅτι ἐγνώκατε τὸν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς.
ἔγραψα ὑμῖν, νεανίσκοι, ὅτι ἰσχυροί ἐστε καὶ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει καὶ νενικήκατε τὸν πονηρόν.
15 Μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσμον μηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. ἐάν τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν κόσμον, οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν αὐτῷ· 16 ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν καὶ ἡ ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐστίν. 17 καὶ ὁ κόσμος παράγεται καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυμία αὐτοῦ, ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

Verse 7:  The combination of the vocative ἀγαπητοί and the verb γράφω might signal a new discourse segment. J employs ἀγαπητοί six times in 2:7-4:11 (it also occurs 4 times in 3 Jn). It may be a variation on the vocative τεκνία μου. Paul and Peter similarly employ this vocative in their letters. As a term of endearment, it expresses something of the relationship between the writer and his audience. The negative οὐκ technically modifies the noun phrase that follows. For ἐντολή see 2:3. In the first two occurrences of ἐντολή the qualifying adjective is in the fourth attributive position, because the construction is anarthrous. In the third instance the noun phrase is arthrous. These positions gives the adjective some prominence. The direct object precedes the verb in the first clause and receives the emphasis. γράφω is a present active indicative verb whose aspect is imperfective, suggesting Aktionsart that expresses a current action or process. This verb takes a direct and indirect (ὑμῖν) object.

The conjunction ἀλλά, following the negative, marks the action that replaces the one initially denied and it expresses disjunction (“but”). The same verb from the initial clause is implied in the second clause. The direct object of the implied verb is ἐντολὴν παλαιάν. How old is ‘old’ in this context? What does ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς refer to – the beginning of God’s covenant with Israel, the incarnation of Jesus, their conversion, or the time when the writer began teaching his message? Presumably the writer dismisses any idea that he has changed his message. He defines ἐντολὴν παλαιάν with an adjectival relative clause. Within its clause the relative pronoun functions as the direct object and its antecedent is ἐντολήν 2°. J uses the imperfect active indicative verb form εἴχετε as the main verb in the relative clause. Its imperfective aspect indicates Aktionsart that implies a continuing, past, activity/process of possession. The sense might be “which you were in possession of from the start.”

The last clause gives more definition to this ἐντολὴ παλαιά. The article is probably anaphoric with a deictic quality (“this old command”). This is an equative clause with the predicate nominative identified with the subject (a = b). Both nominative nouns are arthrous and so either could function as subject. However, since ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ παλαιά is placed first, J probably intends it to function as the subject. J has used ὁ λόγος previously ((1:1, 10: 2:5) and here it has the sense “this message.” He adds one qualifier, the relative clause, to specify which message he is talking about. The relative pronoun functions as the direct object of the aorist active indicative verb and it describes a completed activity. J does not in this context explain when or how they have heard this “old command,” but it may refer to kind of activity described in 1:1-3.

Verse 8:  According to BDAG (753.4) the adverb πάλιν functions as “a marker of contrast” in this context (“on the other hand”). J’s language seems contradictory here in the light of the previous verse where he claims he is writing an “old command.” Once more J positions the direct object ἐντολὴν καινήν prior to the verb, in the focal point of the clause. The anarthrous construction has the adjective in the fourth attributive position. He repeats the present active indicative verb γράφω, declaring an action current with the composition of the document. The indirect object ὑμῖν indicates who is the recipient of this written information. This main clause virtually repeats the information provided in v. 7a.

The relative clause ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν is difficult because the neuter singular relative pronoun ὅ has no explicit antecedent. I think we discern a similar construction in OG Exod 14.31 (εἶδεν δὲ Ἰσραὴλ τὴν χεῖρα τὴν μεγάλην, ἃ ἐποίησεν κύριος τοὶς Αἰγυπτίοις “So Israel saw the great hand, which things the Lord had done to the Egyptians” NETS). The antecedent of the relative pronoun in such cases seems to be either the entire previous clause or the collective actions in the previous narrative. In 1 Jn 2:8 the relative clause refers to the character of this law that has received new or fresh affirmation or expression. The third declension adjective ἀληθές is a nominative neuter singular form (its gender is determined by the gender of the relative pronoun that it modifies) and it functions as the predicate. The verb ἐστιν indicates the subject has the characteristic of ἀληθές. We might translate ἀλήθες in the sense “come true, realized” as in Acts 12:9 (Peter’s failure to realize that his escape from jail is real and not a dream). There is some discussion in the literature whether we should accent αυτῳ as the third person masculine pronoun, referencing Jesus, the Living Word, or a neuter singular reflexive pronoun (short for ἑαυτῷ) whose antecedent is the relative pronoun (in the sense “which is true in itself and in you”).

The subordinate conjunction ὅτι probably is marking a content clause defining the essence of the new command and functioning in apposition to ἐντολὴν καινήν. However, it could also be causal explaining why the essence of this new command is being realized (modifying adjective ἀλήθες in the relative clause. The ὅτι construction contains two parallel, but contrasting clauses as indicated by the two subjects and corresponding verbs. The arthrous terms σκοτία/φῶς probably refer to their previous introduction in 1:5, where J uses them to state something about the deity. J employs two present indicative verbs, one in the middle/passive voice (παράγεται) and one in the active voice (φαίνει), but both are intransitive. According to TLG this is the first attestation of παράγω used with σκότος/σκοτία. If παράγεται is passive, then some agent is causing σκοτία to “pass by.” In Ps 143.4(LXX) the active intransitive usage describes a person’s “days passing by like a shadow.” Presumably the sense of that simile is that a person’s days leave as much impression as a shadow. Is this the sense that J intends with respect to the darkness? It has a limited influence because “it is passing by or being made to pass by,” i.e., it is ephemeral? J qualifies τὸ φῶς with an attributive adjective τὸ ἀληθινόν in the second attributive position. The verb is qualified by the temporal adverb ἤδη that means something “already” is happening and so emphasizes the imperfective aspect of the present active tense form φαίνει. Given that the subject of this verb is τὸ φῶς, the sense of the verb probably is “to shine,” indicating a continuing process or activity.

Verse 9:  Verses 7-10 exhibit asyndeton as there are no particles or conjunctions employed to connect the major clauses, unless we should count πάλιν in v. 8 in this category. The subject in v. 9 is a compounded set of present participles (λέγων…μισῶν) under the head of a single article (see v. 4 for a similar construction). The location of the participles at the beginning and end of this construction creates a chiastic construction. They refer to a single referent. The present participles express actions that are happening concurrently. J uses the verb μισέω five times (2:9, 11; 3:13, 15; 4:20) and in four of these contexts the object is τὸν ἀδελφόν (3:13 is the exception).

The first substantival participle ὁ λέγων is modified by an indirect discourse clause formed with an infinitive (εἶναι) and functioning as the object of the participle. Because the person speaking is making the claim expressed in the indirect speech, the subject is not repeated with the infinitive. In the indirect speech clause, the predicate is the prepositional phrase ἐν τῷ φωτί that probably expresses a metaphorical spatial idea, given the nature of the metaphor.

In the case of the second substantival participle J preposes the direct object τὸν ἀδελφόν, putting it in the focal point of this construction. J does not define what constitutes a “brother (sister),” but presumably it refers to a member of the faith community, not a family relation, or just any human being. The pronoun αὐτοῦ expresses relationship. What does the article with ἀδελφόν signify? It is probably specifying a certain category of person, i.e., one who is the class of ἀδελφός, however that may be defined in this context. J does not define what kind of action constitutes “hating” in this context (see 3:15-18).

In the predicate of the main clause J contrasts the initial claim with the reality using a similar construction (ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ ἐστίν). This phrase expresses a spatial idea appropriate to the metaphor. Perhaps the article is deictic (“this darkness”) referencing ἡ σκοτία in v. 8. The phrase ἕως ἄρτι occurs frequently in the NT across a broad range of documents. ἕως functions as a preposition and the head lexeme of the phrase is an adverb, a common idiom. ἄρτι is a temporal adverb referring to a time simultaneous with the action of the verb (“until the present”). This person is “in darkness up to the present time” even though the light has already appeared. The previous adverb ἤδη (v. 8) refers to a point of time preceding the current time and the action it qualifies tends to be viewed as completed. Does the verb ἐστιν have an existential sense here?

Verse 10:  J continues his discussion of this “new command” with a declaration about “the person who loves his brother.” Another substantival present participle (ὁ ἀγαπῶν) functions as the subject of the verb μένει. The present participle indicates an activity concurrent with the main verb. J qualifies the participle with a direct object (τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ) (see v. 9). Is “loving the brother” equivalent to fulfilling the second great command? If so, in what sense is this an ἐντολὴ καινή? What is new about it? The main verb is a present indicative active form (μένει) expressing a continuing activity or process. It is modified by an adverbial prepositional phrase that precedes the verb (ἐν τῷ φωτί). Is there a difference in meaning between ἐν τῷ φωτί ἐστιν and ἐν τῷ φωτὶ μένει?

J adds a second independent clause linked by καί to the first clause. What is the nuance of the conjunction? Could it be resultative or is it just additive? The noun σκάνδαλον can mean “a trap” or “something that causes a person to stumble.” In the LXX and the NT it is used literally and metaphorically (something that causes immorality or apostasy). What is the subject of ἔστιν? σκάνδαλον is anarthrous and so may not be the intended subject. ὁ ἀγαπῶν, the subject of the first clause, might continue as the subject, giving the sense “and so he is not a trap in reference to him (the Messiah? The brother?)/or it (ὁ λόγος).” Because he stays in the light, his thoughts and actions are plain to see and he does not represent an impediment to faith that he might be if he existed in the darkness. ἐν αὐτῷ would be a reference to ὁ λόγος in v. 7 or to the Messiah as in v. 8. The more common interpretation is to understand that J is saying that no point of stumbling exists in this person who loves his brother. In this case ἐν αὐτῷ refers to ὁ ἀγαπῶν. This is another equative clause but because it is negatived it has the sense that A does not equal B.

Verse 11:  J again employs a substantival present active participle as the subject of this equative clause (ὁ μισῶν). Its action is concurrent with the main verbs in these three clauses. He shows the logical link of this clause with the previous one by using the postpositive particle δέ. It is probably adversative in this context given the contrast between ὁ ἀγαπῶν and ὁ μισῶν. τὸν ἀδελφόν is the direct object of the participle. The possessive pronoun αὐτοῦ identifies this “brother” as one related to the subject. The verb ἐστίν characterizes the subject as “existing” ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ, contrasting with ἐν τῷ φωτί used in v. 10.

ὁ μισῶν continues as the subject of the next two clauses, each linked with the previous by the conjunction καί. The single subject relates these actions to the same person. J repeats the adverbial prepositional phrase ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ and places it in the focal point of the clause. It modifies the verb that follows. περιπατεῖ is a present active indicative form indicating whose imperfective aspect lexical meaning indicate Aktionsart that implies a current activity or process. For περιπατέω see 1:6.

The third main clause employs a verb of knowing (οἶδεν) that functions as a present indicative active form. It is completed by an indirect question ποῡ ὑπάγει. This is the only occurrence of ὑπάγω in 1 Jn, but the writer of the Gospel of John employs it frequently in the sense “go in a certain direction.” There is probably a word-play with the previous cognate verb παράγω. The subject of ὑπάγει is the same as οἶδεν. ποῦ is an interrogative adverb indicating in this context movement in a some direction. This is its only use in 1 Jn.

The verse concludes with a subordinate clause marked by causal ὅτι that explains why this person is in the darkness, is walking in the darkness, and does not know where he is going. The subject ἡ σκοτία is in the focal point of the clause. τυφλόω is a causative verb that means “to deprive of sight” (BDAG 1021). In this case darkness has produced blindness (aorist tense form). This terminology is metaphorical and the audience has to figure out what the symbolism means. The object τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς presumably refers to mental or spiritual acuity. The antecedent of αὐτοῦ is ὁ μισῶν. It identifies whose ‘eyes’ are being referenced.

Although ὁ ἀγαπῶν is not a σκάνδαλον, ὁ μίσῶν cannot discern the right path to follow (presumably this is the moral path). ὁ ἀγαπῶν, by the way they live and interact with ὁ μισῶν, do not trip these people even though they “walk in the dark” and “are blind.”

Verses 12-14:  The segment in vv. 12-14 has a very distinctive literary form. There is nothing quite like it in the rest of the NT. The entire discourse unit is marked by asyndesis. The verb γράφω is repeated six times—three times in the present indicative tense and three times in the aorist indicative tense. Each time it is a first person singular form, with the subject presumably being the person writing the document. The segment seems to have two sections. In the first section (vv. 12-13) the verb is a present indicative active form modified by an adverbial clause of cause marked by ὅτι. Alternatively, ὅτι could mark a content clause of indirect discourse that functions as the object of the main verb. Each verb in the ὅτι clause is a perfect tense form. The main verb is qualified by an indirect object (ὑμῖν) that is further defined by a vocative noun (τεκνία, πατέρες, νεανίσκοι). The writer has used the diminutive noun τεκνία previously as a form of address that includes all in the audience. If he intends it to have the same function in v. 12, then perhaps the terms πατέρες/νεανίσκοι refer to specific groups within the larger community (τεκνία). If this is the case then what does it mean that some in the audience are simultaneously τεκνία and πατέρες/νεανίσκοι? Whether the designations in v. 13 are intended to define these groups by age or spiritual maturity (or perhaps both) or community function is unclear.

In the second section (v. 14), each of the main verbs is an aorist indicative tense form modified by an indirect object in the dative (ὑμῖν) that again is defined by a vocative (παιδία, πατέρες, νεανίσκοι). The main verb in each case is modified by a subordinate causal clause marked by ὅτι. The first two subordinate clauses include a perfect tense form, but the third incorporates two present tense forms and a perfect tense form. The ὅτι clauses can also be interpreted as content clauses of indirect discourse.

The alternation between present and aorist tense forms has no clear semantic implications. Is this the second time the author has addressed this audience with a document and the aorist tense forms in v. 14 describe his intent in sending the first document? Or is this only a stylistic variation that plays on differing perspectives – the current reality of writing the document (present tense) and how the audience perceives it when it arrives, as something written in the past?

The variation between τεκνία/παιδία in vv. 12, 14 has to be interpreted in the light of their usage elsewhere (τεκνία is more dominant; παιδία only occurs in 2:18; 3:7) in the document to refer to everyone in the group to whom the document is addressed. If ὅτι in each case is causal, then this section gives us the most detailed statement describing why the writer is composing this document.

Verse 12:  The initial clause γράφω ὑμῖν, τεκνία parallels the initial clause in 2:1 τεκνία μου, ταῦτα γράφω ὑμῖν. If J intends us to read v. 12 in the light of 2:1, then perhaps we should understand the ὅτι clause as filling the object slot that ταῦτα occupies in 2:1. See a similar formulation in 2:8 (also 1:4).

The ὅτι clause incorporates a perfect passive plural tense form ἀφέωνται indicating that the subject αἱ ἀμαρτίαι “…stand forgiven.” The dative pronoun ὑμῖν defines the group for whom this is true, namely the previous τεκνία. Perhaps it is a dative of advantage or reference. The adverbial phrase διὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ describes the cause or rationale for the τεκνία to enjoy this status or condition. In 3:23 and 5:13 the name is specified as τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ/τοῦ θεοῦ. Probably we should then understand the ‘name’ in 2:12 to be the name of Jesus.

Verse 13:  If in v. 13a the writer moves to address a specific group within his audience, the seniors among the group who in antiquity probably were the recognized ‘leaders’, then his declaration or explanation about his message is that “you know [someone or something (depending on the gender of the noun referenced) that is from the beginning].” The aspect of the perfect tense form suggests some status or condition that is continuing. The direct object is a nominalized prepositional phrase. What the accusative masculine singular article (τὸν ἀπ’ αρχῆς) refers to again is ambiguous. J will use the same syntagm in the next verse. Apart from 2:13-14 ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς is associated with a neuter singular relative pronoun (1:1; 2:24(2x)) or an accusative feminine singular relative pronoun (2:7; 3:11) whose antecedent is ἐντολή or ἀγγελία. According to 2:24(2x) it is something heard. He described something similarly in 1:1 using a relative clause. This nominalized phrase is a unique formation in the NT. It could refer to Jesus or ὁ λόγος ὃν ἠκούσατε (2:7). I suspect given the use of this phrase with neuter singular relative pronouns or feminine pronouns that refer to a message or a command, that ὁ λόγος is probably intended. The ‘fathers’ then are the older member of the community who heard the message first, i.e., “at the beginning of the church community in this part of the world,” and have the responsibility to preserve this truth.

The noun νεανίσκοι refers to males who are young, unmarried adults. See its usage in Lk 7:14; Acts 5:10; 23:22. The cognate term νεᾶνις describes female young adults. J declares that they enjoy victory over “the evil one,” using a perfect active verb νενικήκατε. He will repeat this statement in 2:14. The only use of this verb in John’s Gospel occurs in 16:33 where Jesus declares “I have overcome (νενίκηκα) the world.” J employs this verb again in 4:4; 5:4, 5. In those contexts the thing conquered is “those in the world” or “the world.” J refers frequently to Satan as τὸν πονηρόν (2:13, 14; 3:12; 5:18, 19). This usage occurs in Jn 17:15 (as well as in Matthew and Luke). Note the possible alliteration between νεανίσκοι…νενικήκατε.

Verse 14:  Why J switches from the present tense to the aorist tense form of γράφω in v. 14 is somewhat of a mystery. Culy (41) notes that J employs present tense forms of this verb up until 2:13 and he uses aorist forms in the remainder of the document (2:14 onwards). Some scholars suggest that J uses the aorist tense form to refer to what he has written in the first part of the document. Culy notes Porter’s theory that the aorist tense semantically indicates the information is less prominent, but since J essentially repeats what he says using the present tense form in vv. 12-13, I am not sure how this works logically in the flow of the discourse. The very fact of repetition in my opinion would give prominence to this information.

J asserts that the παιδία “have come to know the father” (perfect tense form). Presumably this is a reference to God, the father” (see 1:2, 3; 2:1, 16, 22, 23, 24; 4:14). Is the previous statement that “their sins stand forgiven because of his name” (v. 12) the grounds for this claim “to have come to know the father?” Is the vocative term παιδία used because of their relationship with τὸν πατέρα? Surely J would agree that this statement is true of all believers and would therefore apply to the πατέρες and νεανίσκοι. So if these other two groups are not included in the descriptor παιδία, what is J affirming? The content of v. 14b repeats the content of v. 13b, apart from the changed tense form ἔγραψα.

In v. 14c J includes three clauses in the ὅτι construction. The third ὅτι clause in v. 14c repeats the same information given in v. 13b. The first two ὅτι clauses introduce new material. J affirms that these νεανίσκοι are ἰσχυροί “strong.” Is this adjective to be understood metaphorically as a description of their spiritual vitality? This is J’s only use of this adjective. Is it used in the sense Paul employs it in 1 Cor 4:10 – they are spiritually strong because of their relationship with Jesus and God and this strength enables their victory over “the evil one?”

The phrase ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ only occurs here in 1 Jn, although he uses the similar ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ in 1:10 (if the antecedent of αὐτοῦ is θεός). A similar idea occurs in 2:24 (ὑμεῖς ὃ ἠκούσατε ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ἐν ὑμῖν μενέτω). In my opinion the affirmations in the first two clauses explain why these “young men” are in the position of “conquering the evil one.”

Verse 15:  J begins this concluding section with a prohibition (μή + present imperative), perhaps with the sense “don’t be loving this κόσμος.” The imperfective aspect of the present imperative suggests an incomplete activity. This is the second use of the verb in 1 Jn (see 2:10). Twenty-three times in this short letter the writer uses the noun κόσμος, primarily with the metaphorical sense of “fallen world system” (see 2:2 and frequently in John’s Gospel), except for the occurrences in 3:17-4:4. μηδέ is a negative correlative and signals that the previous verb also governs the accusative plural, nominalized prepositional phrase τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. The prepositional phrase probably has a locative sense indicating place, either metaphorically or literally. The two objects may refer to the general and the particular and together are inclusive of everything connected with ὁ κόσμος.

The section continues with a third class condition (ἐάν + present subjunctive). The indefinite pronoun τις functions as subject and expresses a less forceful ‘accusation’. The assumption is that in the writer’s opinion some in his audience are in fact acting in this manner, in contrast to the previous prohibition. Presumably the sense of the present subjunctive ἀγαπᾷ would parallel the previous imperative, namely “if someone should be loving the world.” The apodosis uses the present tense form ἔστιν to make a declaration about such people, if the possibility in the protasis should prove true. It is an equative clause and the negative adverb reverses the sense. The genitive τοῦ πατρός could be subjective (the father’s love for them) or objective (their love for the father) or perhaps the writer integrates both ideas within one syntagm. ἐν αὐτῷ is the predicate and has a metaphorical, locative sense (“in him”). The referent of the pronoun is the previous τις. The sense of οὐκ ἔστιν could be “is non-existent” or “is not present,” or perhaps it is characterizing A as not B.

Verse 16:  This expresses the rationale for the declaration made in the apodosis in v. 15b. ὅτι probably has a causal function, marking a subordinate clause that is part of the conditional sentence in v. 15b. Two declarative, contrasting clauses occur in v. 16, in which the main verb is the equative verb ἔστιν. The initial negative clause (οὐκ ἔστιν) is contrasted with the second, marked by the adversative conjunction ἀλλά. The subject of both clauses is πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. The writer continues with the neuter singular nominalized prepositional phrase τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ that he introduced in v. 15. The position of πᾶν indicates that it has an inclusive sense (“everything”). The writer now defines what he means by κόσμος, using three appositional noun phrases, each formed with a head noun modified by a genitive qualifier.

Each of the genitives could be subjective (σαρκός), refer to source (ὄφθαλμῶν), or be objective (βίου) in tone. ἐπιθυμία can express either a good or bad ‘desire’ and the nuance depends upon context. Presumably these desires and the temptations implied, connected as they are with ὁ κόσμος, the fallen world system, are immoral, despite God’s intention at creation. Perhaps the writer is offering a concise commentary on Gen 3:6. The noun σάρξ only occurs twice in 1 Jn (2:16; 4:2). In the second instance σάρξ (4:2) refers to the human existence and experience of Jesus “who has come ἐν σαρκί.” I do not think the writer is employing σάρξ in the Pauline sense (in contrast with Πνεῦμα), but rather is referring to physical, human existence. He means “the desires that arise in the course of our fallen, human existence.” The second occurrence of ἐπιθυμία in 2:16 refers to a primary faculty of sense through which such desires are triggered within humans, namely the eyes.

The head noun in the third phrase, ἀλαζονεία, only occurs twice in the NT (see Ja 4:16). BDAG (40) define it as “pretension, arrogance.” Diggle et al, Classical Greek Lexicon (I, 53), suggest “pretence to superior knowledge or skill, charlatanism, imposture, quackery; pretence, boastfulness, ostentation” used for personal benefit or gain.” J connects this with ὁ βίος, a term that describes “how one’s ζωή finds expression” (BDAG, 177). According to BDAG it refers to “worldly goods” here and in 3:17. The genitive could be objective (“pretence based on/pride in status and wealth”) or source (“pretence or pride generated by status and wealth”). Whatever the intended sense, there is an undercurrent of instability and vulnerability that such “pretence/pride” involves.

J affirms that “everything that is ‘in’ this fallen world system” does not have its source “in” the father. He does not at this point specify what its source might be, other than the rather tautologous ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐστίν. This formulation indicates that κόσμος in this context does refer to the world as God’s creation, but other agents are involved in its operations and they stimulate immoral behavior. Believers are to love the brothers, but not the fallen world system in which the brothers live.

Verse 17:  This seems to be the concluding statement in this paragraph and thus may be the conclusion to this section (2:7-17). In each clause the subject occupies the first position. The initial καί could be ascensive (“indeed, in fact, actually”), emphasizing the declaration, and not conjunctive. J has used the same verb παράγεται in 2:8 (see the commentary) to state that ἡ σκοτία παράγεται. Perhaps he intends his audience to equate σκοτία with κόσμος. Is this an eschatological statement or is the writer warning his audience that what seems ‘real’ in human civilization has a very limited shelf-life? J places the verb between the two elements that form the compound subject – a kind of hyperbaton. It has the effect of portraying ἡ ἐπιθυμία αὐτοῦ as a kind of after-thought. ἐπιθυμία picks up the previous usage in v. 16. Again κόσμος and ἐπιθυμία are inter-connected. Is αὐτοῦ an objective genitive (desire for it) or a subjective genitive (the desires it generates) or a possessive genitive (its desires)?

Given the contrast between παράγεται and μένει, δέ segments the topics in the two sequential clauses, marking the second as a new subtopic in the discourse. Any adversative sense comes from the semantic contrast between the verbs and their respective subjects. Both verbs are present indicative forms indicating action in progress or a condition that is existing. The subject of the verb in the second clause is a substantival present active participle ὁ ποιῶν whose action is concurrent with the main verb μένει. Perhaps the sense is “performing” or “accomplishing.” It is modified by the direct object τὸ θέλημα that in turn is specified by the genitive τοῦ θεοῦ. Presumably God’s θέλημα contrasts with the ἐπιθυμίαι whose source is in ὁ κόσμος. τοῦ θεοῦ is certainly a subjective genitive.

This is the only occurrence of the verb phrase μένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα in this document. However, it occurs several times in John’s Gospel, specifically with Jesus as the subject (e.g., 8:35; 12:34). εἰς as a temporal marker can indicate duration (“until the age”).