1 John 1:6

An inference from the first principle just laid down. God is light, utterly removed from all darkness: therefore to be in darkness is to be cut off from Him.

If we say With great gentleness he puts the case hypothetically, and with great delicacy he includes himself in the hypothesis. This -if we" continues in almost every verse until 1 John 2:3, after which it is changed into the equivalent -he that", which continues down to 1 John 2:11; after that neither form is used. This is one of several indications that from 1 John 1:6 to 1 John 2:11 is a definite division of the Epistle, based upon the introductory verse, 1 John 1:5. With 1 John 2:12 there is a new departure.

walk in darkness This -walk" (περιπατεῖν) is the Latin versariand signifies the ordinary course of life. The word in this sense is frequent in S. Paul and in S. John. Comp. 1 John 2:6; 1 John 2:11; 2 John 1:4; 2 John 1:6; 3 John 1:3-4; Revelation 21:24; John 8:12. It expresses not merely action, but habitual action. A life in moral darkness can no more have communion with God, than a life in a coal-pit can have communion with the sun. For -what communion hath light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:4). Light can be shut out, but it cannot be shut in. Some Gnostics taught, not merely that to the illuminated all conduct was alike, but that to reach the highest form of illumination men must experience every kind of action, however abominable, in order to work themselves free from the powers that rule the world (Eus. H. E.IV. vii. 9). -In darkness" should probably be in the darkness: in 1 John 1:6, as in 1 John 2:8-9; 1 John 2:11, both light and darkness have the article in the Greek, which is not merely generic but emphatic; that which is light indeed is opposed to that which is darkness indeed. In 2 Corinthians 6:14, -What communion hath light with darkness?", neither word has the article.

we lie, and do not the truth Antithetic parallelism, as in 1 John 1:5. The negative statement here carries us further than the positive one: it includes conduct as well as speech. See on John 3:21, where -doing the truth" is opposed to -practising evil". It is also the opposite of - doinga lie" (Revelation 21:27; Revelation 22:15). In LXX. -to domercy and truth" is found several times. So also S. Paul opposes truth to iniquity(1 Corinthians 13:6); shewing that neither does he confine truth to truthfulness in words. In this Epistle we find many striking harmonies in thought and language between S. John and S. Paul, quite fatal to the view that there is a fundamental difference in teaching between the two Apostles.