Question Concerning 1 John 5:18

[Jared]

1 John 5:18 says in the ESV:

We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.

What does it mean "but he who was born of God protects him"?

I looked at The Message paraphrase to see what Eugene Peterson had to say about this verse, and here's how the portion reads:

The God-begotten are also the God-protected.

Do you think this is the correct interpretation, or is there some other interpretation?

 

[JohnGill]

We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

The ESV makes no sense. According to its rendering I'm protecting someone, but in the AV I'm keeping myself from sin.

Here is what John Gill said:

Ver. 18. We know that whosoever is born of God,.... Who is regenerated by his Spirit and grace, and quickened by his power; who has Christ formed in him, and is made a partaker of the divine nature, and has every grace implanted in him:

sinneth not; the sin unto death; nor does he live in sin, or is under the power and dominion of it, though he does not live without it; See Gill on "1Jo 3:9";

but he that is begotten of God; the Vulgate Latin version reads, "the generation of God keeps or preserves him"; that is, that which is born in him, the new man, the principle of grace, or seed of God in him, keeps him from notorious crimes, particularly from sinning the sin unto death, and from the governing power of all other sins; but all other versions, as well as copies, read as we do, and as follows:

keepeth himself; not that any man can keep himself by his own power and strength; otherwise what mean the petitions of the saints to God that he would keep them, and even of Christ himself to God for them on the same account? God only is the keeper of his people, and they are only kept in safety whom he keeps, and it is by his power they are kept; but the sense is, that a believer defends himself by taking to him the whole armour of God, and especially the shield of faith, against the corruptions of his own heart, the snares of the world, and particularly the temptations of Satan:

and that wicked one toucheth him not; he cannot come at him so as to wound him to the heart, or destroy that principle of life that is in him, or so as to overcome and devour him; he may tempt him, and sift him, and buffet him, and greatly afflict and grieve him, but he can not touch his life, or hurt him with the second death; nay, sometimes the believer is so enabled to wield the shield of faith, or to hold up Christ the shield by faith, and turn it every way in such a manner, that Satan, who is here meant by the wicked one, because he is notoriously so, cannot come near him, nor in with him; cannot work upon him at all with his temptations, nor in the least hurt his peace, joy, and comfort: the saints know their perseverance from the promises of God and declarations of Christ; Ps 125:1.

Hope it helps.

 

[moral necessity]

Good thoughts, as this is often a tough passage.

The "keep on" sinning is partial to the ESV translation, yet the Greek seems to imply some sort of present perfect tense of continuity, which is where that particular translation comes from.

I, personally, tend to think it refers to the context of apostasy, as I tend to think that much of this book refers to. And so, God keeps those who are his, and they never fall away or apostasize. Read Gill's commentary on the passage and his work entitled, "The Cause of God and Truth", and you'll come across some of these thoughts along the way. But, I'm sure that others may have differing opinions as well. But, this is where I tend to stand for now on the topic.

Blessings!

 

[Jared]

I consulted Matthew Henry's Commentary before I looked at The Message but it wasn't that helpful. Where could I buy a copy of John Gill's Commentary?

 

[JohnGill]

Writings of John Gill

I consulted Matthew Henry's Commentary before I looked at The Message but it wasn't that helpful. Where could I buy a copy of John Gill's Commentary?

SGCB | Book Search

Or you can visit it online for free at: John Gill's Exposition of the whole Bible.

And his other works including The Cause of God and Truth are available online here: Gill's Archive

Some accuse Gill of hyper-calvinism, but in reading his material I don't see how they get this. Now in the material of some of his followers there is hyper-calvinism.

Heritage Books also sells his books.

Concerning his Exposition of the Old and New Testament:

"To Reformed Baptist families I recommend Gill first and foremost, before Calvin and before Henry. The reason is simple, the commentary is comprehensive virtually covering every verse in the Bible and the Doctrines of Graces are accurately riddled throughout for the benefit of you and your children. If you have been wanting a comprehensive commentary on Scripture, but have been baffled, don't fully know what is good and what is bad you will not go wrong with Gill. To those who are avid readers and collectors of good books (like myself) if you don't own Gill or fallaciously consider him to be below your level, a waste of money or surpassed by modern commentaries, how wrong you are. Originally, I made the mistake of taking Gill for granted, but I tell you (a man of many books) there is so much theology in the commentaries of Gill, one would do well to get half of it in a life time- deep theological veins run there. Take another look, consult him on a verse, and tell me you found nothing there. Perhaps my early neglect of Gill was due to the fact that I didn't really know how to look and that is why I could get nothing or see nothing in Gill, or maybe I didn't look because I didn't take Gill serious, but whatever the reason it matters not. So much has changed, now he is one of my favorite commentators and his set my most valued comprehensive set on the Bible. To be without him is to remain ignorant. Recommended chief among commentaries!" B. K. Campbell

In the history of the Christian church, there has only been one comprehensive, verse-by-verse commentary of the entire Bible. Thank God that the author of this commentary was a model of biblical orthodoxy and sound scholarship, Dr. John Gill (1697-1771). Of Dr. Gill, the prince of preachers, Charles Spurgeon, wrote: 'In some respects, he has no superior. For good, sound, massive, sober sense in commenting, who can excel Gill?'

The Philadelphia Baptist Association, in its official minutes of October 1807 recommended, "that each member church of the Association subscribe for a copy of Dr. Gill's incomparable Exposition of the Old and New Testaments for the use of their ministers, and urge all sister associations to aid in the accomplishment of this desirable object." Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association 1707-1807. (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1851) page 439.

The Baptist historian David Benedict noted that the Charleston Baptist Association "recommended to the churches and the public to encourage, by subscription, the undertaking . . . to republish Dr. Gill's Exposition and each church was advised to provide a copy for the use of its minister." A General History of the Baptist Denomination.

 

[Jared]

I consulted Matthew Henry's Commentary before I looked at The Message but it wasn't that helpful. Where could I buy a copy of John Gill's Commentary?

Some accuse Gill of hyper-calvinism, but in reading his material I don't see how they get this. Now in the material of some of his followers there is hyper-calvinism.

Is it because he was a supralapsarian? I tend to lean towards supralapsarianism.

 

[moral necessity]

I consulted Matthew Henry's Commentary before I looked at The Message but it wasn't that helpful. Where could I buy a copy of John Gill's Commentary?

Some accuse Gill of hyper-calvinism, but in reading his material I don't see how they get this. Now in the material of some of his followers there is hyper-calvinism.

Is it because he was a supralapsarian? I tend to lean towards supralapsarianism.

Actually, I don't think they necessarily equated supralapsarianism with hypercalvinism. The two don't always go hand in hand. He was accused of hypercalvinism for other reasons, actually. But,......accusations are always relative to their source. And so, they are not always to be believed.

 

[JohnGill]

I consulted Matthew Henry's Commentary before I looked at The Message but it wasn't that helpful. Where could I buy a copy of John Gill's Commentary?

Some accuse Gill of hyper-calvinism, but in reading his material I don't see how they get this. Now in the material of some of his followers there is hyper-calvinism.

Is it because he was a supralapsarian? I tend to lean towards supralapsarianism.

I've heard that it was due to his supralapsarianism, but others attribute to other things. Though I don't see how supralapsarianism leads to hypercalvinism.

He was evangelistic all his life, so for me the charge is baseless. Besides supralapsarians and infralapsarians worked together to write the Westminster Confession.

 

[larryjf]

Could 1 Jn 5:18 be referring to Jesus?

We know that no one who is born of God sins {that's believers}; but He who was born of God {that's Jesus} keeps him {that's believers}, and the evil one does not touch him. (1Jn 5:18, NASB)

 

[Jared]

Some accuse Gill of hyper-calvinism, but in reading his material I don't see how they get this. Now in the material of some of his followers there is hyper-calvinism.

Is it because he was a supralapsarian? I tend to lean towards supralapsarianism.

I've heard that it was due to his supralapsarianism, but others attribute to other things. Though I don't see how supralapsarianism leads to hypercalvinism.

He was evangelistic all his life, so for me the charge is baseless. Besides supralapsarians and infralapsarians worked together to write the Westminster Confession.

All hypercalvinists are supralapsarians but not all supralapsarians are hypercalvinists. At least, that's what I've heard.

I guess I lean towards supralapsarianism because I believe in double predestination, but that is probably for another thread.

I try to share the gospel with anyone that I can, so I don't think I'm hyper. I also consider Arminians brothers and sisters in Christ as long as they don't deny the trinity or some other major Christian doctrine.