All five conditional statements in 1 Juan 1:6–10 are structurally third-class conditions, not first-class conditions.

They use ἐάν + subjunctive:

Verse	Conditional clause	Form
1:6	ἐὰν εἴπωμεν… καὶ… περιπατῶμεν	ἐάν + subjunctive
1:7	ἐὰν… περιπατῶμεν	ἐάν + subjunctive
1:8	ἐὰν εἴπωμεν	ἐάν + subjunctive
1:9	ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν	ἐάν + subjunctive
1:10	ἐὰν εἴπωμεν	ἐάν + subjunctive

A first-class condition would normally use εἰ + indicative. John does not use that construction in any of these five statements. The TR clearly has, for example, ἐὰν… περιπατῶμεν in 1:7.

More precisely, these appear to function as present-general conditions:

Whenever this condition occurs, this result is true.

That is because John combines ἐάν + subjunctive in the condition with present indicatives in the result:

• whenever we claim fellowship while walking in darkness → we lie
• whenever we walk in the light → we have fellowship, and the blood cleanses
• whenever we claim to have no sin → we deceive ourselves
• whenever we confess → God is faithful and just
• whenever we claim not to have sinned → we make Him a liar

This is the standard construction for a present-general condition: ἐάν + subjunctive, followed by a present indicative describing what regularly or invariably follows.

Therefore, John is not grammatically saying, “Since we say this…” or assuming the claims are true for argument’s sake. He is establishing five possible cases and stating the verdict or result that applies whenever each case is present:

If—or whenever—we say/walk/confess this, then this result follows.

So your observation of the sequence remains strong: condition → observable situation → result/verdict. The conditional does not affirm the condition; it opens the case for examination.

do we have examples of any other places where someone does this?

Worked for 1m 9s

Yes. The closest parallel I see is 1 Corinthians 13:1–3. Paul stacks five ἐάν-conditions—the same number found in 1 John 1:6–10:

1. If I speak with the tongues of humans and angels…
2. If I have prophecy and know all mysteries…
3. If I have all faith…
4. If I distribute all my possessions…
5. If I deliver up my body…

Each condition is placed against but do not have love, followed by a verdict:

condition presented ↓ decisive element examined ↓ verdict announced

The Greek repeatedly uses ἐάν + subjunctive; κἄν in verse 3 is simply καὶ + ἐάν. Paul is not claiming that he actually performs every hypothetical action. He constructs possible cases and announces what would be true in each case.

James does something very similar

James 2:14–17 begins:

If someone says that he has faith but does not have works…

Greek:

ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ τις ἔχειν, ἔργα δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ

Then James constructs another case:

If a brother or sister is without clothing and daily food, and one of you says…

He tests a verbal claim against an observable reality and ends with the verdict:

faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

That is extremely close to 1 John’s method:

If we say… but the walk contradicts the claim → we lie.

James is not affirming that every reader makes the claim. He opens a hypothetical case so that its validity can be tested.

John immediately continues the same method

The strongest confirmation may be 1 John 2:3–9. John changes the grammatical wording, but not the method:

• the one who says, “I have known Him,” but does not keep His commandments → is a liar
• the one who says he remains in Him → ought to walk as He walked
• the one who says he is in the light but hates his brother → is still in darkness

In chapter 1 the formula is:

If we say…

In chapter 2 it becomes:

The one who says…

But both expose a claim to a corresponding reality and then state the verdict.

So 1 John 1:6–10 belongs to an identifiable rhetorical pattern:

Construct possible cases → test each case → announce its result.

It is not five accusations that John assumes are presently true of his readers. Nor is ἐάν equivalent to “since.” They are five diagnostic cases placed before the community. The unusually close numerical and grammatical parallel is 1 Corinthians 13:1–3: five stacked ἐάν-conditions used to reveal what follows whenever the decisive reality is present or absent.

Since God is light, fellowship with Him can only take place in the light.

In 1:5–7 John says walk in the light, not yet remain in the light. But conceptually your statement is sound:

God is light ↓ fellowship is participation with Him ↓ therefore fellowship cannot be lived in darkness ↓ those sharing that fellowship walk in the light

That does not mean fellowship requires sinlessness. Verse 7 includes cleansing from sin. It means we remain exposed to God as He truly is, rather than retreating into denial:

Walking in the light: sin is revealed, acknowledged, and cleansed. Walking in darkness: sin is contradicted while fellowship is still claimed.

So the central contrast is not:

sin versus no sin

but:

remaining open to the light versus resisting what the light reveals.

A strong formulation would be:

Because God is light, participation with Him is lived in the light. Walking in the light does not mean that no sin is present, but that the sin exposed there is acknowledged rather than denied.

so not confessing sin, isn’t breaking fellowship, it’s a sign that fellowship isn’t there.

Yes—that is closer to John’s logic, with one important qualification.

John does not present confession as the act that restores a fellowship that sin has broken. He never says:

We sin ↓ fellowship is broken ↓ we confess ↓ fellowship is restarted

Instead, he says:

We claim fellowship ↓ our walk tests that claim ↓ persistent denial of sin shows that we are not walking in the light ↓ therefore the claimed fellowship is false

That is exactly the verdict of 1:6:

If we say that we have fellowship with Him and walk in darkness, we lie.

So refusing the light’s verdict—“we have no sin” or “we have not sinned”—does not appear as the cause that terminates fellowship. It reveals that the person’s claim to fellowship does not correspond to reality.

Confession works in the opposite direction. It does not manufacture fellowship; it is the truthful response that belongs within fellowship with the God who is light:

God is light ↓ fellowship with Him is lived in the light ↓ the light exposes sin ↓ we acknowledge rather than deny it ↓ God faithfully forgives and cleanses

The qualification is that John describes denial, not merely a delayed or imperfect confession. A believer may struggle, hesitate, or fail initially to recognize a particular sin. John’s diagnostic cases are stronger:

• We have no sin.
• We have not sinned.
• God’s verdict is rejected.
• The truth or His word is not in us.

So I would formulate the conclusion this way:

Sin itself is not presented as breaking fellowship. Persistent denial of the sin exposed by God’s light reveals that the claimed fellowship is not actually being lived. Confession does not restore fellowship; it expresses the truthful response of walking in the light.

And 2:1–2 reinforces this: when believers do sin, John points them not to the recreation of fellowship through confession, but to the Advocate already present with the Father.

so, 5 case studies regarding fellowship. John shows which one is authentic, which ones are false.

Yes. Five case studies under the question of fellowship with the God who is light.

But they are not five equal models. They arrange into one authentic pattern and its false alternatives:

1. 1:6 — False fellowship Claims fellowship while walking in darkness.
2. 1:7 — Authentic fellowship Walks in the light; fellowship and cleansing are present.
3. 1:8 — False response to the light Denies the presence of sin.
4. 1:9 — Authentic response within the light Acknowledges the sins that are exposed; God forgives and cleanses.
5. 1:10 — False response to God’s word Denies having sinned and contradicts God.

So more precisely:

1:7 gives the authentic fellowship case. 1:9 shows how that fellowship responds when sin is exposed.

And:

1:6 gives the false fellowship claim. 1:8 and 1:10 show the false responses that belong with resisting the light.

The five cases therefore form two paths:

Authentic: walk in the light → acknowledge sin → fellowship and cleansing

False: claim fellowship while walking in darkness → deny sin → contradict God

A strong summary would be:

John presents five conditional cases to distinguish authentic fellowship from claimed fellowship. Authentic fellowship is lived in the light and responds truthfully to exposed sin; false fellowship is marked by a walk or speech that contradicts the light.