1:5-10  5 And this is the message that we have heard from him and we are announcing to you, that God is light and there is no darkness in him. 6 If we should say that we have a partnership with him and we should walk in darkness, we are lying and we are not practicing the truth. 7 If we should walk in the light, as he himself is in the light, we have partnership with one another and the blood of Jesus, his son, cleanses us from every sin. 8 If we should say that we do not have sin, we are deceiving ourselves and this truth does not exist in us. 9 If we should admit our sins, he is trustworthy and righteous, so that he forgives us these sins and cleanses us from every unjust act. 10 If we should say that we do not live in a sinful state, we constitute him a liar and his message is not existing in us.

1:5-10  5 Καὶ ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ ἀγγελία ἣν ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀναγγέλλομεν ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία. 6 ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶμεν, ψευδόμεθα καὶ οὐ ποιοῦμεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν· 7 ἐὰν ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατῶμεν, ὡς αὐτός ἐστιν ἐν τῷ φωτί, κοινωνίαν ἔχομεν μετ’ ἀλλήλων, καὶ τὸ αἷμα Ἰησοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καθαρίζει ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἁμαρτίας. 8 ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχομεν, ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶμεν καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν. 9 ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, πιστός ἐστιν καὶ δίκαιος, ἵνα ἀφῇ ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀδικίας. 10 ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι οὐχ ἡμαρτήκαμεν, ψεύστην ποιοῦμεν αὐτόν, καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡμῖν.

Verse 5: J connects the independent, declarative clauses in v. 5 with the previous declaration in v. 4, using the conjunction καί that indicates “thematic unity.” Culy (2004, 10) notes that καὶ αὕτη ἐστίν occurs several times in 1 Jn (2:25; 3:23; 5:4, 11, 14; 2 Jn 6), but in these cases αὕτη precedes the verb. However, the phrase in v. 5 functions similarly to mark important themes in clauses that follow (a cataphoric function).

This clause is an equative clause in which the demonstrative pronoun αὕτη functions as the predicate nominative, whose antecedent probably is the following ὅτι clause. When a demonstrative has an anaphoric function in 1 Jn, it functions as subject, but when it is cataphoric it tends to function as a predicate nominative (Culy 2004, 11).  The arthrous noun ἀγγελία, the subject, picks up the previous cognate verb ἀπαγγέλλομεν used in v. 3, as well as J’s usage of a related compound verb ἀναγγέλλομεν in the following relative clause. This noun only occurs in the NT in 1 Jn (see also 3:11). The meaning of the noun is illustrated by the use of the simplex form of the cognate verb in Jn 4:51; 20:18 where people report what they have observed to other people.

In the compound relative clause ἣν (antecedent is ἀγγελία) fills the direct object slot for the two verbs linked with καί. J describes the transaction of knowledge from the writers to the intended audience. This is the third occurrence of the perfect tense form ἀκηκόαμεν in five verses (see the discussion in the commentary on v.1). J obviously considers the auditory experience they have had with the Messiah (ἀπὸ αὐτοῦ identifies the source) to be a completed experience, but one whose implications continue to affect the speaker in some manner. This “hearing” continues to shape their lives. J shifts to a present tense form ἀναγγέλλομεν, a compound form only occurring in 1 Jn here. Louw and Nida (411 §33.197) suggest that ἀναγγέλλω means to “provide information with the possible implication of considerable detail,” whereas ἀπαγγέλλω means “to announce or inform with possible focus upon the source of information.” Culy (2004, 12) disputes this explanation and regards this variation as stylistic. It depends to what degree the prepositional prefixes influence the verbs’ semantic content. ὑμῖν is dative of indirect object. The Aktionsart of the present tense form suggests an activity concurrent with the composition of this document.

The ὅτι compound clause is appositional to the relative pronoun that is the object of the verbs in the relative clause. ὅτι marks a noun/content clause of indirect discourse, giving the content of the discourse. It contains two equative clause. The arthrous ὁ θεός is the subject of the first clause, with φῶς being a predicate nominative and characterizing the subject. φῶς precedes the verb and in this fronted position may have prominence. The second equative clause repeats the same idea but uses a negative formation. The anarthrous σκοτία is the subject and the locative phrase ἐν αὐτῷ functions as the predicate, providing the specific information about the subject that J wishes to articulate. The double negative οὐκ…οὐδεμία emphasizes the negative idea. J’s positioning of the negative adjective οὐδεμία after the verb and separated from the noun it modifies (σκοτία) is an example of hyperbaton, where the noun and the adjective frame the entire clause. This ordering gives οὐδεμία some prominence in the clause. This construction shows that J pays attention to literary and rhetorical style in his composition. Louw and Nida (14:53) regard σκότος (once), σκοτία (six times) as synonyms. J uses both in vv. 5-6 and this may be an example of stylistic variation.  The first as anarthrous and the second is arthrous, perhaps with an anaphoric sense.

Verse 6: Having stated a theme, namely that “the deity is light,” G proceeds with a series of five conditional clauses each of which begin with ἐάν and incorporate first person plural present or aorist subjunctive verbs, expressing 3^rd class conditions (what potentially or hypothetically might be the case). In each case J addresses something that his audience might have claimed or might be doing, related to the issue of light and darkness. Third class conditions are a polite, less “in your face” manner of criticism perhaps.

In v. 6 the protasis includes a compounded clause, The first clause expresses a potential claim that some in the audience might make. The aspect of the aorist subjunctive verb εἶπωμεν in the protasis is perfective and in this context its Aktionsart describes a possible claim made. The object of this verb is a content clause of indirect discourse marked by ὅτι. The content clause makes a claim using a present active indicative verb form ἔχομεν, whose aspect is imperfective and its Aktionsart may indicate in this context a continued state (“we have partnership with him”). The prepositional phrase μετ’ αὐτοῦ expresses the idea of association and God is the antecedent of the pronoun. J fronts the direct object κοινωνίαν giving it prominence. The verb in the second clause of the protasis indicates imperfective aspect (present active subjunctive) and an action concurrent with the verbal action of the first clause. In other words, having made a certain claim, the same group are acting in ways that in J’s view are inconsistent with such a claim (ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶμεν). I am not sure that J intends the choice of a present tense form to foreground this action, in contrast to the action of the previous aorist verb form (as Porter’s thesis about Greek verb tenses proposes). J seems to put as much weight on the affirmation as he does on the lived action that contrasts with the affirmation. The adverbial prepositional phrase ἐν τῷ σκότει describes the sphere in which the verb’s action is occurring. J employs περιπατέω five times in 1 Jn 1-2. The action of the verb (“walking”) has a metaphorical sense that refers to conduct or behaviour (consider the Jewish term halakah). Similarly, the nouns “light” and “darkness,” as in the Gospel of John, have symbolic meaning. Light is associated with purity/goodness, moral excellence, and true knowledge, whereas darkness connotes evil, immorality, and ignorance.

The apodosis in v. 6 also has two parts. The first responds to the affirmation in the protasis and claims that those who make such an affirmation, but “conduct themselves contrary to divine instruction,” are in fact stating a lie (ψευδόμεθα). This is the only occurrence of this verb in 1 Jn, but the cognate terms ψεῦδος (2x) and ψεύστης (5x) occur repeatedly. J employs a present tense in this context whose imperfective aspect and lexical significance suggests Aktionsart that expresses a continuing reality or process and the middle voice suggests that the subjects willingly or deliberately engage in this activity, perhaps with a sense of promoting their own agendas. The second clause in the apodosis, marked by καί, indicates that “walking in the darkness” means “not practicing the truth.” The imperfective aspect of the present active indicative verb ποιοῦμεν combines with its lexical sense to generate an Aktionsart that suggests a continuing situation. The direct object is τὴν ἀλήθειαν (used nine times in 1 Jn), a reference to God’s revelation to Israel through the prophets and the Messiah Jesus. The clash between deceit and truth creates a fault line that runs through the entirety of history and all human culture according to J. The Messiah who has become visible and reveals God’s truth is the standard by which we discern the light and the darkness.

Verse 7: The protasis of the second, third class conditional clause only has one clause whose main verb is the present active subjunctive verb περιπατῶμεν. It repeats the verb used in the protasis in v. 6. However, the meaning is reversed because the adverbial prepositional modifier is ἐν τῷ φωτί. The preposition ἐν expresses a spatial idea, namely the moral sphere in which one lives. J told his audience in v. 6 that ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν. He repeats this theme in the clause of comparison marked by ὡς. The intensive marked αὐτός modifies the subject of this descriptive clause expressed in the verb’s suffix (ἐστιν). The prepositional phrase ἐστιν ἐν τῷ φωτί expresses a slightly different idea than φῶς ἐστιν. In v. 6 J characterizes God’s essence as φῶς, whereas in v. 7 he makes a statement of the moral values that characterize God’s actions.

The apodosis contains two independent, declarative clauses, both of which incorporate present active indicative verbs. In v. 3 J stated that the group writing this document enjoys partnership with the audience. In v. 7 J affirms this reality, using the phrase μετ’ ἀλλήλων to express this association. The object κοινωνίαν once more fronts its verb, as in vv. 3, 6. J seems to make obedience to God the necessary foundation for human partnerships in the kingdom. The second clause reveals the reason why such human partnership in the kingdom is even sustainable— “Jesus’ blood is cleansing us from every sin.” J continues this discourse with the conjunction καί.

τὸ αἷμα is the subject  of καθαρίζει. This is the language of religious ritual. Both in Greek and Jewish religion animal sacrifices were important means of sustaining right relations with deities. In the case of Christianity, it is the sacrifice of the person Jesus and the offering of his blood that enables the sin of his followers to be forgiven and “partnership” with the deity and other humans to form (reconciliation motif). The genitive Ἰησοῦ indicates whose blood is involved. The appositional genitive τοῦ υἱοῦ identifies Jesus as God’s son. These are remarkable affirmations. The antecedent of the genitive of relationship αὐτοῦ is God, the father. In my opinion the Aktionsart implied in the present active indicative verb καθαρίζει expresses the process of cleansing. Such potency distinguishes this sacrifice from all other sacrifices offered by humans, that must be repeated. The prepositional phrase marked by ἀπό indicates separation from something. In this case it is the effects of πάσης ἁμαρτίας, i.e., “every sin.” Jesus’ blood effects cleansing no matter the nature of the sin. This is one case where one’s understanding of verbal aspect has significant theological implications.

Verse 8: This is the third in the series of third class conditions (ἐὰν εἴπωμεν). J continues with a first person plural aorist active subjunctive verb form that includes himself, his associates, and his audience. The aspect of the aorist subjunctive with this verb of speech probably indicates a perfective activity. The content clause of indirect speech, marked by ὅτι, functions as the direct object of εἴπωμεν. In the ὅτι clause J fronts the direct object, the anarthrous ἁμαρτίαν (see v.7) that refers to sin in general. He links the negative adverb οὐκ directly with the verb by its position. The posited claim incorporates a present active verb form ἔχομεν, whose imperfective aspect and lexical sense generates Aktionsart that can express a continuing state or condition. J uses verb this in 1:3, 6, 7 with the noun κοινωνία. In that syntagm ἔχω means “experience partnership.” Should we assume that J employs ἔχω in the same way with ἁμαρτίαν (see John 9:41)? Or does it connote a sinful character? Or perhaps it has a judicial sense, namely “to have guilt because of sin?” J uses this verb with various connotations in this document. Is this equivalent to “walking in darkness?”

The apodosis has two main clauses connected by the conjunction καί. In the first of these clauses J again fronts the direct object, the plural reflexive pronoun ἑαυτούς. Although this is properly a third person pronoun, the plural forms are used with all three persons to express a reflexive sense. In this case the subject is first person plural. πλανῶμεν is a present active indicative form and its imperfect aspect and lexical sense suggests Aktionsart that indicates a continuing process (“we are deceiving”). Tragically and ironically, the ones deceived are the ones making the claim. In the second clause οὐκ ἔστιν probably means “does not exist.” And the place where the truth does not exist is ἐν ἡμῖν, expressing a locative idea. J marks the subject with the arthrous ἡ ἀλήθεια (see v. 6). Perhaps the article also is anaphoric referring to the principle stated in v. 7. Without truth such people have no partnership with the Father who is light (v. 5). A large number of MSS place εν ημιν before ουκ εστιν.

Verse 9: In the protasis of the fourth conditional clause, J iterates another “confession,” using a present active subjunctive verb  (ὁμολογῶμεν) whose imperfective aspect and meaning may express Aktionsart that characterizes the subjects. This verb can mean “accede that something is true” (admit, agree) or “publicly acknowledge something” (profess, confess) (BDAG, 708). J employs it five times (1:9; 2:23; 4:2, 3, 15; see also 2 Jn 7) and it is always transitive. Once again J includes himself, his associates, and his audience in the subject (first person plural). The direct object is τὰς ἁμαρτίας, modified by the subjective genitive ἡμῶν. Are we agreeing with the principle that we have sins or are we publicly confessing the sins we have committed?

The apodosis is an equative clause in which the subject is characterized by elements in the predicate. The second part of the following ἵνα clause repeats essentially the content of v. 7c, that refers to Jesus and the effectiveness of his sacrifice. This leads me to assume that Jesus is the subject of ἐστιν, rather than ὁ θεός. However, the distinction probably has little significance. J separates the two elements in the compound predicate (πιστός…καὶ δίκαιος) with ἐστιν, giving a bit of prominence to the first adjective and creating hyperbaton. The adjectives indicate that the subject is “trusted/trustworthy and in the right/just.”

The compound ἵνα clauses have the same subject, namely Jesus Messiah. They are probably result clauses. The two verbs are aorist subjunctives (ἀφῇ from ἀφίημι “to cancel, remit, pardon,” used to describe forgiving loans; and καθαρίσῃ from καθαρίζω “to make clean; declare clean through ritual cleansing”). The perfective aspect of the aorist subjunctive in conjunction with the lexical sense of these verbs suggests Aktionsart that implies a particular action. Both are transitive in this context. ἀφῇ takes an indirect object ἡμῖν. The adverbial phrase ἀπὸ πάσης ἀδικίας expresses separation and modifies καθαρίσῃ. The anarthrous πάσης ἀδικίας probably means “every unjust act” without exception. The plural ἁμαρτίας would connote individual sins committed and the singular πάσης ἀδικίας itemizes each one. These terms frequently are interchanged in LXX Psalms.

Verse 10: This is the last in this series of conditional constructions (ἐάν…εἴπωμεν). J continues to question the validity of claims that he perceives some in his audience may be making. ὅτι marks a content clause of indirect speech that functions as the object of εἴπωμεν. The negative οὐχ modifies the perfect active verb ἡμαρτήκαμεν. If J intends the aspect of the perfect verb form to have its usual force, then such people are claiming that they do not have the status of sinning individuals or active sinners. Note the first person plural subject.

The apodosis includes a present indicative active verb ποιοῦμεν. Combined with the lexical sense of this verb, the imperfective aspect presents an Aktionsart that characterizes the subject in a specific way. When this verb means “to make someone something,” the qualifying nouns/pronouns function as direct objects (double accusative). The direct object αὐτόν refers either to God or Jesus Christ. ψεύστη functions as a second object that defines what the subjects are doing to or how they are characterizing the first object (αὐτόν). The position of ψεύστην prior to the verb gives it prominence in its clause.

J appends a second independent clause to the apodosis that explains in different language the implications of the protasis. καί is conjunctive here. This clause parallels the clause that ends v. 8 (there ἡ ἀλήθεια is the subject). Here the subject is the arthrous ὁ λόγος, the term used in v. 1. αὐτοῦ may refer to Jesus Christ or to God. The genitive is probably subjective, i.e., the truth that the deity reveals, but an argument could be made that it is objective genitive, i.e., the truth about him. However, the logic in the context suggests that the debate is not about the Messiah or God, per se, but about the divine perspective on the human condition. If this is the case, then the genitive is probably subjective. οὐκ ἔστιν once again means “does not exist.” The adverbial phrase ἐν ἡμῖν describes location and functions as the predicate in the copula clause.