1 John 5:18-21: Little Children, Keep Yourselves from Idols

We have come to know [1Pl Perf Act Indic] that everyone having-been-born [Nom MS Perf Pass Part] from God does not sin [3S Pres Act Indic], but the born-one [Nom MS 1 Aor Pass Part] of God keeps [3S Pres Act Indic] him and the evil one does not touch [3S Pres Mid Indic] him. 19We have come to know [1Pl Perf Act Indic] that from God we are [1Pl Pres Act Indic], and the whole world in the evil one lies [3S Pres Mid Indic]. 20But we have come to know [1Pl Perf Act Indic] that the Son of God is come [3S Pres Act Indic] and he has given [3S Perf Act Indic] to us understanding in order that we may know [1Pl Pres Act Subj] the truth, and we are [1Pl Pres Act Indic] in the truth, in his Son Jesus Christ. This one is [3S Pres Act Indic] true God and eternal life. 21Little children, keep [2Pl 1 Aor Act Impv] yourselves from idols.
18

V. 18: In 18-20, John writes three statements beginning with we have come to know (perfect tense). The first statement is that We have come to know that everyone born of God does not sin, but the Born One of God keeps him and the evil one does not touch him. John makes a play on words here to reiterate, as he has said through this book, that to be born of God means to cease to sin. The play comes by speaking of the Born One of God who keeps everyone born of Godin other words Jesus protects his brothers and sisters from the touch of the evil one. Stott helpfully reminds us, Note that power for deliverance from sin, which is here attributed to the Son, is in iii. 9 attributed to Gods seed which remains in the Christian.1 I dont know why I have never read does not sin as instruction (always instead having read it as more of a gnomic statement), but Stott writes, The perfect participle indicates that the new birth, far from being a transient phase of religious experience, has an abiding result. He who has been begotten of God remains Gods child with permanent privileges and obligations. One of these obligations is expressed in the phrase that he sinneth not. The previous two verses (16, 17) concerning [page] the sin unto death applied to unbelievers. Very different is the case of him who has been born of God. As in iii. 4-10 (where see notes) the tense of the verb is present and implies continuity, habit, permanence (Blaiklock). It expresses the truth, not that he cannot ever slip into acts of sin, but rather that he does not persist in it habitually or live in sin (Dodd). The new birth results in new behaviour. Sin and the child of God are incompatible. They may occasionally meet; they cannot live together in harmony.2 I was not convinced that the sin unto death applied to unbelievers, but I actually think that reading this as an obligation as well as a description of an inability for habitual sinning is more helpful than if read merely as a description. First, it makes sense of our divided wills, in that we dont want to sin, but at the same time we (paradoxically) desperately want to sin. We sometimes sin a sin not leading to death, but if we have been born of God we genuinely dont wish to practice sin. Its complicated, but the good news is that our new nature will continue to put the old nature to death. We will be conformed to Christ, no matter how much we struggle with sin in the meantime! Second, I also think that this helps us to understand the narrative of the brother asking on behalf of his sinning brother for life. Genuine believers cannot (either in the sense of incapable, or in the sense of not being allowed to) continue in sin. They will be rescued and restored one way or another, perhaps by the intercession of a fellow believer, but certainly by the grace of the one Born of God. Stott continues, regarding the inability of the evil one to touch us: But why does he need to be kept? If he has been begotten of God, is he not immune to temptation? No. The devil, that wicked one, is maliciously active. Strong and subtle, he is more than a match for him. But the Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil (iii. 8), and if He holds (terei) the Christian, the devil will not be able to lay hold of him.The devil does not touch the Christian because the Son keeps him, and so, because the Son keeps him, the Christian does not sin.3 Burdick is helpful on the meaning of touch:
John Stott, The Epistles of John, an introduction and commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 192. John Stott, The Epistles of John, an introduction and commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 191-92. 3 John Stott, The Epistles of John, an introduction and commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 193.
2 1

To translate haptetai as touch, as the NASB does, is to miss the force of the word. The basic meaning of the active form hapto is fasten to and in the middle voice, fasten oneself to. Hence, the middle haptetai means take hold of, cling to. John declares that the evil one does not lay hold of the child of God to harm him. 4 It should be noted again, however, that John doesnt write this so that we should despair of the sins that we do still commit, despite having been born again (see v. 13)he writes to distinguish us from those without any compunctions for sinning. This is exactly what he says in v. 19, below. V. 19: Second, John writes that We have come to know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. Although the Born One of God protects us from the slightest touch of the evil one, the whole world lies firmly in his grip. This is a terrifying contrast that should bring us to tears for our lost friends and family membersthey lie in the dominating, tyrannical power of the evil one. But as Stott reminds us, We need to remember, however, that although the whole world lies in the power of the evil one, it is for the sins of the whole world (the only other occurrence of the expression in the Epistle) that Jesus Christ is the propitiation (ii. 2).5 And, as a reminder, how is it that we have come to know that we are from God? Through believing in the name of the Son of God (v. 13). This is the point John makes in v. 20, below. V. 20: Third, we have come to know that the Son of God has come and he has given us understanding that we may know the truth, and we are in the truth, in his son Jesus Christ. This one is true God and eternal life. That this one (Gods Son Jesus Christ; cf. 1 John 5:1, 5) is himself true God and eternal life is a perfect summary of our faith. This is not dry doctrine, but our abundant hope, that in Jesus we find the eternal, infinite One, in whom we find all the abundance of the Fountain of Living Waters. Stott helpfully summarizes the two prongs of Johns statement about Jesus as concerning both revelation and redemption: Both revelation and redemption are His gracious work. Without Him we could neither know God nor overcome sin. These are possible to us today only because the Son of God has come, and, having come, hath given us an understanding.The verbs must be viewed together. The Christian gospel is not merely concerned with the truth that Christ has given us certain things, but that He has come. This is another example in the Epistle of Johns emphasis that the Christian religion is both historical and experimental, and not one without the other. Moreover, both verbs are in the perfect tense. The benefit of His coming abides. His gift He will not take away (cf. Rom. xi. 29).6 John, however, goes beyond merely identifying the odd beliefs of a small community in the ancient world; he actually identifies Jesus as the truth himself. Jesus is the truth, and there is no other. We may need understanding as a gracious gift of the Holy Spirit to grasp this, but our understanding doesnt alter the realityJesus Christ is indeed the truth. Burdick explains that:

Donald Burdick, The letters of John the Apostle : an in-depth commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 393. John Stott, The Epistles of John, an introduction and commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 194. 6 John Stott, The Epistles of John, an introduction and commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 194.
5

God the Father is here described as Him who is true. However, in numerous contexts, the term alethinos may mean real or genuine. The reference to idols in verse 21 indicates that in verse 20 John has in mind the real God as over against counterfeit gods.7 Stott notes that Our Lord is here at the end of the Epistle significantly given His full title as He was at the beginning (i. 3). He is Jesus the man, Christ the Messiah, Gods eternal Son.8 Kruse lists 7 bases for the assurance throughout the entire letter, and then he writes The striking thing about the bases of Christian assurance in 1 John is that they all appear to be related to objective rather than subjective criteria. Whether it be a matter of confidence on the day of judgment, confidence in prayer, or inner assurance that one knows God or abides in him, in every case the author notes that it is closely connected with right belief and right behaviour (especially loving acts for the benefit of others).Pastorally this would seem to be of very great importance, not least in those circles where assurance is connected only to faith in Gods promises or where assurance is connected to a persons experience of the Spirit.9 Interestingly, Lenski launches an assault against the exegesis that sees this One as God, and not as Gods Son Jesus Christ: This is the old exegesis. It played a great role in the controversy with Arius who, because of his denial of the eternal Sonship, was compelled to make John say that this One (houtos) = God and not Jesus Christ. This Arian exegesis became that of all later anti-Trinitarians, of the old Socinians, of the English deists, of the German rationalists, etc. Against them stands the exegesis of the church as it was advanced from the early days onward. This exegesis of the church is now called a mistake by a number of commentators who believe in the full deity of Jesus as it is revealed in Scripture but feel convinced that this houtos clause speaks of the Father and not of his Son. The question is: Of whom does it speak? There are weapons more than enough elsewhere in Scripture to smite all Arians without the use of this clause. Is this also one of the weapons or not? It is unfair when those who answer no intimate that we who with the church answer yes are swayed by dogmatical interests. Whether we have one passage more or one less in our tremendous arsenal against Arius and his followers makes little difference to us.10 Lenski then explains his exegesis on the basis of the tautology that reading this passage as referring to God would create, and also that Jesus himself is referred to as eternal life in 1:4. Finally, John notes that this forms a climax to the book: So John has hitherto called Jesus the Son of God and his (the Fathers, Gods) Son, and now, here at the end and the climax, John duplicates and calls also [page] Jesus Christ the real Gods Son because he is the real Gods only begotten Son (4:9), yea, the real God. As the Father is the real (genuine) God, so his Son is the real (genuine) God, and this Son places us in fellowship with the Father. Need we add the words that Jesus himself spoke in John 10:30; 12:45; 14:9?11

Donald Burdick, The letters of John the Apostle : an in-depth commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985), 395. John Stott, The Epistles of John, an introduction and commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 195. 9 Colin Kruse, The letters of John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 200. 10 R.C.H. Lenski, The interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 543. 11 R.C.H. Lenski, The interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 544-45.
8

V. 21: John ends on a verse that many find extraordinarily odd: Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Indeed, John has written nothing of idols through this entire passage; however, at the same time, he has written of nothing other than idols if you consider idols to be anything that distracts us from seeing the glory and beauty of Jesus Christ himself. The reason we are to keep ourselves from idols is that we are to keep ourselves for Jesus Christ, who is himself true God and eternal life. Lenski writes: What John means by the idols from which his little children are to guard themselves is made plain by the context, in fact, by the entire epistle. John is not speaking of common pagan idols, which are then irrelevantly introduced at the very end of his epistle. These idols are the fictional conceptions of God that were held by Cerinthus and by his devotees. By calling these conceptions the idols John places them in the same class with all the pagan images and the imagined [page] gods. This includes all the anti-Trinitarian conceptions of God, no matter by whom they are held.12 This is a perfect rhetorical note on which to end the book: keep yourselves from idols.

R.C.H. Lenski, The interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 545-46.

12