The Adventures of Arthur Croft: The Labyrinth of St. Mark

Episode 3: The Labyrinth of St. Mark

[Back to Series Hub]

The salt spray of the Mediterranean had barely dried on Arthur's jacket before the humid, crowded chaos of Alexandria swallowed him whole. Unlike the silent isolation of the Sinai, Alexandria was a fortress of noise—the scraping of iron gates, the haggling of street-side markets, and the constant hum of a city built over its own ghosts.

Arthur kept his head down, the waterproof rucksack held tight against his side. He didn't head for the Great Library or the modern museums. Instead, he wound through the narrow, laundry-draped alleys of the Kom el-Dikka district, within the shadow of the Cathedral of St. Mark, following the cryptic annotations he'd decoded during the voyage.

The marks in the codex had pointed to a "Guardian of the Second Chair"—a title that led Arthur to a nondescript, basement-level bookstore specializing in Coptic manuscripts.

Inside, the air smelled of cloves and decaying paper. Behind a desk piled high with parchment sat a man whose skin looked like weathered vellum.

"I am looking for the commentary on the 'receptive hand,'" Arthur said, using the phrasing suggested by the marginalia.

The old man looked up, his eyes sharp. He didn't speak. Instead, he reached under the counter and produced a heavy, iron key. He pointed toward a door obscured by a heavy tapestry.

Arthur descended a spiral staircase that felt like it was drilling into the bedrock of the ancient city. At the bottom lay a private archive, a subterranean vault where the humidity was strictly controlled by clay jars of desiccated salts.

He found the shelf. There, tucked behind a series of Byzantine ledgers, was a small wooden scroll-case. Arthur's breath hitched. As he slid the parchment out, he saw it wasn't a biblical text, but a technical linguistic treatise from the early school of Alexandria.

It was a "Lexicon of Grace."

His eyes scanned the columns. The scroll specifically addressed the Greek word charis (grace). It compared it not to a wage or a reward for merit, but to the unilateral favor of a king who pardons a debt without requesting a single drachma in return.

"It's a linguistic absolute," Arthur whispered, his mind racing. "The grammar doesn't allow for a 'synergy' of works. It's a pure gift."

Suddenly, the heavy iron door at the top of the stairs slammed open.

"The problem with linguistics, Mr. Croft, is that they are so easily silenced," Dr. Finch's voice echoed down the stone shaft.

Arthur looked up to see Finch silhouetted against the light, flanked by a local official in a sharp suit. Finch wasn't wearing his field gear anymore; he was dressed in a formal academic suit, looking every bit the respected scholar—a mask for the legalistic predator beneath.

"You are trespassing in a restricted heritage site," Finch said calmly. "Hand over the rucksack and the scroll. The Institute has the legal authority to seize 'unstable' documents."

"Authority isn't the same as truth, Alistair," Arthur called back, surreptitiously looking for a second exit. The vault was a dead end—or so it seemed.

He noticed a small ventilation shaft near the ceiling, barely wide enough for a man of his stature. He looked at the Lexicon in his hand. If Finch took this, the technical proof of a "free gift" interpretation would be buried in a private collection, never to see the light of an academic journal.

Arthur didn't argue. He grabbed a heavy bronze book-end from a nearby table and hurled it at the overhead light fixture.

The vault plunged into total darkness.

"Grab him!" Finch screamed.

In the blackness, Arthur moved by instinct and memory. He didn't head for the stairs. He scrambled up a set of sturdy wooden shelves, his fingers finding the edge of the ventilation grate. With a heave that strained his shoulders, he kicked the grate loose and pulled himself into the narrow, dust-choked duct.

As he crawled through the darkness, stray beams from the guards' flashlights pierced the cracks in the air duct, sweeping the room below. He had the Codex, and now he had the Lexicon. He was no longer just a researcher; he was a smuggler of the Light.

*  *  *

Study Insight

In Episode 3, Arthur discovers a "Lexicon of Grace." In New Testament Greek, the word χάρις (charis) is fundamentally defined as "unmerited favor." A common mistake in legalistic interpretations is to treat grace as a "boost" that helps a person perform enough good works to be saved. However, as the Greek grammar suggests, grace and works are mutually exclusive categories in the context of salvation (cf. Rom. 3:24, 4:4-5, 11:6; Gal. 2:21; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). For more on the technical distinction between grace and merit, see the works of C.I. Scofield or Lewis Sperry Chafer, who meticulously cataloged how "the gift" cannot be "earned" without changing its very definition.

The Free Grace Study Bible: John 8:56

I am pleased to share the latest installment of my ongoing work on The Free Grace Study Bible. Today's post features my translation of John 8:56, paired with original commentary and translation notes designed to clarify the meaning of the Greek text. I have provided the Greek-to-English rendering first, followed by the supporting notes that explain my translation choices.

John 8:56 

Greek Textus Receptus 

Ἀβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἠγαλλιάσατο ἵνα ἴδῃ τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἐμήν, καὶ εἶδε καὶ ἐχάρη. 

Free Grace Translation 

"Abraham your father exulted that he would see My day, and he saw [it] and was glad." 

Bible Translation Notes 

Grk. Ἀβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν. "There is a cutting irony in the apposition, Abraham, your father. Their father rejoicing in the expectation of a presence which excited only their malice and hatred." (Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 3 Vols., Vol. II, p. 352.) 

Grk. ἠγαλλιάσατο ἵνα ἴδῃ. For the translation of ἠγαλλιάσατο as "exulted," see Leon Morris, The Gospel of John, Revised Edition (NICNT), p. 417. Bengel's translation is similar, and likewise supports my Free Grace Translation. Bengel writes: ἠγαλλιάσατο, ἵνα, exulted that...Evinced his eagerness with longing desire." (John Albert Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament [Edinburgh: 1868], 5 Vols., Vol. II, p. 368.) Commenting on the phrase ἠγαλλιάσατο ἵνα ἴδῃ, the NT Greek scholar Henry Alford writes: "literally, rejoiced, that He should see." (Alford, The New Testament for English Readers [London: 1863], 2 Vols., Vol. I, Part II, p. 546.) While technically correct and grammatically defensible, the translation "he should see" is somewhat awkward in modern English and actually tends to convey a different idea than the meaning of the Greek. I chose to use the word "would" instead of "should" because in modern-day English, "should" can sometimes be confused with "ought to" (implying moral obligation). Whereas "would" reads much smoother and is still prospective. Several respected English Bible versions similarly translate ἴδῃ in John 8:56 as "he would see" (see e.g., Jn. 8:56 ESV, HCSB, NASB 2020). 

Grk. ἵνα ἴδῃ = hina clause with ἴδῃ (aorist subjunctive, 3rd person singular, from ὁράω). Literally, that he should see. Commenting on this phrase, Walther has this insightful comment: "ἵνα ἴδῃ--Instead of ἵνα we might have expected an infinitive or possibly a ὅτι clause. (Cf. 7:35.) ἵνα clauses gradually took over other "to" functions, a process which continued into the Modern Greek period." (James Arthur Walther, New Testament Greek Workbook: An Inductive Study of the Complete Text of the Gospel of John [Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1966, 1969], p. 129.) A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures, Vol. V, p. 158) sees the hina clause in John 8:56 as having a "Sub-final use," which would lend support to translating the aorist subjunctive ἴδῃ as the infinitive "to see" (Jn. 8:56 KJV, NKJV, etc.). In his monumental work A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Robertson goes into more detail in regard to this "Sub-final use of hina." Under the heading "Sub-Final Clauses" (Grammar, p. 991), Robertson writes the following: "There are a considerable number of clauses which are not pure purpose and yet are not result. They are the bridge, in a sense, between the two extremes. [...] Ἵνα. Here again the main conjunction is ἵνα. [...] The development came on soon after the close of the classical age. [...] It came to be used in almost any sense that the infinitive bore and finally displaced it. This weakened use of ἵνα is one of the characteristics of the κοινή and is richly illustrated in the N. T., particularly in the writings of John. [...] There is a great variety of phrases which thus use ἵνα. [...] With these verbs ἵνα gives the purport or object rather than the purpose. [...] The examples in the N. T. are too numerous to give a complete list. But note ἵνα after [...] ἀγαλλιάομαι (Jo. 8:56); [...] No real distinction in sense can here be drawn between the infinitive and ἵνα. [...] The subjunctive is the usual mode [i.e. mood] employed even after secondary tenses." (Ibid., pp. 991-993.) Robertson goes on to say: "It is debatable whether ἵνα has the ecbatic use [i.e. expressing result] in the N. T. There is in itself no reason why it should not have it, since undoubtedly it was so used in the later Greek. [...] There is not space to follow the long debate in the grammars and commentaries on this subject." (Ibid., p. 997.) Robertson "advocates the freedom of commentators to interpret ἵνα as the context demands (final, sub-final, consecutive)." (Ibid., p. 998.) Robertson says: "The commentator must have grammar, but he needs the grammar of the author on whose work he is making comments." (Ibid., p. 998.) Robertson summarizes by saying: "So, then, we conclude that ἵνα has in the N. T. all three uses (final, sub-final, consecutive), and thus runs a close parallel with the infinitive which it finally displaced." (Ibid., p. 999.) Note that translating ἵνα in John 8:56 simply as "that" satisfies Robertson's statement regarding the "Sub-final use of hina" (Word Pictures, Vol. V, p. 158), where the ἵνα clause can be translated either as "that" (see e.g., Jn. 8:56 ESV, HCSB, NASB 2020) or "to" (see e.g., Jn. 8:56 KJV, NKJV, NET Bible). The translation of ἵνα as "that" in John 8:56 is also the definition assigned to it in Bauer's Lexicon (see Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition, p. 476, s.v. ἵνα, definition 2a). In fact, I would propose that rendering ἵνα simply as "that" is the preferable translation in John 8:56 especially in light of the aorist subjunctive verb which follows. The use of the aorist subjunctive ἴδῃ in John 8:56 is a distinctive syntactical feature that the translator should aim to reflect, rather than obscuring the construction by rendering it as a simple infinitive. When the ἵνα + aorist subjunctive in John 8:56 is translated as an infinitive ("to see"), it tends to blur the prospective nuance that the subjunctive conveys. The translation of John 8:56 would then need to read something like: "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the prospect to see My day." While acceptable, that wording does not fully bring out the subjunctive force of ἴδῃ, that he would see. Translating ἵνα simply as "that" (rather than "to") strikes an optimal balance: "Abraham rejoiced that he would see." This wording correctly identifies the object (what Abraham rejoiced about) as well as the potential/future nature of the verb ἴδῃ—the fact that the "seeing" was a promised event that he anticipated and looked toward. In distinction to this, it is the view of Murray J. Harris that the hina clause in John 8:56 "is epexegetic, indicating the content...or ground...of the seeing, 'in that he saw.' In this case, the following statement [in Jn. 8:56b], 'he saw it and was glad,' is a repetition." (Harris, John, EGGNT, p. 183.) But this view seems to create more problems than it solves. The NT Greek scholar Marcus Dods writes: "[The phrase] ἵνα ἴδῃ ['that he should see'] cannot here have its usual Johannine force and be epexegetical (Burton, Moods, etc.), nor as Holtzmann says = ὅτι ὄψοιτο ['that he would see,' i.e. Abraham rejoiced merely at the fact or content of the report], because in this case the εἶδε καὶ ἐχάρη ['he saw it and was glad'] would be tautological [i.e. unnecessarily redundant]. Euthymius gives the right interpretation: ἠγαλλ., ἤγουν, ἐπεθύμησεν ['he rejoiced,' namely 'he longed for,' in other words, 'he rejoiced' is interpreted not so much as a reaction to a reported fact, but as a passionate exultation in a promise] (similarly Theophylact), and the meaning is 'Abraham exulted in the prospect of seeing,' or 'that he should see'. This he was able to do by means of the promises given to him." (Marcus Dods, Expositor's Greek Testament, ed. W. R. Nicoll, 5 Vols., Vol. I, p. 781.) Köstenberger's rendering of John 8:56 seems to convey the latter sense quite well, and although somewhat of a paraphrase, is nonetheless accurate to the idea. He translates it: "Abraham your father looked forward to the time when he would see my day, and he saw it and was glad." (Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, p. 271.) By using "looked forward to the time when," Köstenberger is leaning heavily into the prospective sense of the aorist subjunctive. This supports my objection to using the infinitive "to see" to translate the verb ἴδῃ, because doing so essentially erases the verb's prospective sense. 

Grk. ἐχάρη (aor. passive of χαίρω) = was glad. Cf. Edwin A. Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary, p. 30, footnote 3. This is also how ἐχάρη is translated in John 8:56b in the KJV, NKJV, NASB77, NASB95 (though not the NASB 2020 edition, which says "rejoiced"), ESV, NIV, NET Bible, etc. This is consistent with Bauer's definition of χαίρω: "to be in a state of happiness and well-being, rejoice, be glad ... J 4:36; 8:56." (Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition, pp. 1074-1075, s.v. χαίρω, definition 1, emphasis his, ellipsis added.)

The Free Grace Study Bible: John 8:53

I am pleased to share the latest installment of my ongoing work on The Free Grace Study Bible. Today's post features my translation of John 8:53, paired with original commentary and translation notes designed to clarify the meaning of the Greek text. I have provided the Greek-to-English rendering first, followed by the supporting notes that explain my translation choices.

John 8:53 

Greek Textus Receptus 

μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ, ὅστις ἀπέθανε; καὶ οἱ προφῆται ἀπέθανον· τίνα σεαυτὸν σὺ ποιεῖς; 

Free Grace Translation 

"You are not greater than our father Abraham who died, [are you]? And the prophets died; whom do you make yourself [out to be]?" 

Bible Translation Notes 

Grk. ἀπέθανεν...ἀπέθανον. These are aorist tense verbs, not nouns. Thus the correct translation in John 8:53 is "died" (as in most English Bibles), not "dead" (the rendering found in the KJV, NKJV, and also in the older English Bibles). The Greek word for "dead" is νεκρός (nekros); that is not the word used here. Commenting on John 8:53, A. T. Robertson consistently translates these verbs as "died" (see Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. V, p. 156; Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th Edition, p. 728.) 

Grk. τίνα. This interrogative pronoun is in the accusative case (not the nominative case), thus it is functioning as the direct object of the question, not the subject of the question. (The pronoun σεαυτὸν functions as the predicate accusative. See A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. V, p. 156.) What this means is that the correct translation of τίνα is not "Who?" but "Whom?" (as in most English Bibles, e.g. see John 8:53 in the Tyndale Bible, Geneva Bible, KJV, RV, ASV, NASB, etc.). In other words, the Jews are asking Jesus: "You are making yourself out to be WHOM?" The subject is σὺ = "You" (not τίνα), which corresponds with the verb ποιεῖς (present, active, indicative, second person singular) which also confirms that the subject is "You". Therefore it is not technically correct to translate the sentence as some English Bibles render it: "Who do you think you are?" (Jn. 8:53, NIV/NLT), or "Who do you make yourself out to be?" (Jn. 8:53, ESV), or "Who do you claim to be?" (Jn. 8:53, NET Bible). The correct rendering of the Greek interrogative pronoun τίνα is "Whom?" not "Who?" Commenting on John 8:53, Leon Morris affirms: "At the end of the verse NIV renders 'Who do you think you are?' but the force of the Greek is rather 'Whom do you make yourself out to be?' (so Bruce, p. 203)." (Morris, The Gospel According to John, Revised Edition, p. 417.) In English, "Who" is used for the subject (the one performing the action), while "Whom" is used for the object (the one receiving the action or being made out to be something). By using "Whom," we correctly identify Jesus as the object of the Jews' questioning.

Someone might try to argue that Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament supports the translation of τίνα as "Who" in John 8:53, but a closer look reveals otherwise. For the definition of τίς (nominative case!), Bauer correctly gives the meaning "who?" (Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd Edition, p. 1007, s.v. τίς, definition 1.) Bauer then references Lk. 5:21 as an example of this usage. (It's important to notice that in Luke 5:21, τίς is likewise in the nominative case!) After citing Lk. 5:21, Bauer lists a number of cross-references, including Jn. 8:53. But these are merely cross-references! (Bauer uses the abbreviation "Cp." meaning "compare".) In other words, Bauer isn't saying that Jn. 8:53 is a direct equivalent or a direct example of the nominative case τίς (meaning "who?"), but rather that John 8:53 provides a broader range of usage for that specific term. To use an analogy, a cross-reference is less like an "= sign" and more like a "hyperlink" to a related file. Thus, Bauer's use of "Cp." (Compare) indicates a thematic parallel, not a syntactic identity. He is linking the recurring question of identity across the New Testament corpus, not suggesting that the accusative τίνα should be treated as the nominative τίς.

The Adventures of Arthur Croft: Echoes of Alexandria

Episode 2: Echoes of Alexandria

[Back to Series Hub]

The sound of heavy boots scraping against stone from the chute above forced Arthur back to reality. He had the codex, but he was trapped in a subterranean grotto with only one way out—a narrow, water-worn fissure at the far end of the chamber that smelled faintly of the Red Sea.

Arthur didn't hesitate. He jammed the lead-lined box into his waterproof rucksack, pulled his hat low, and squeezed into the fissure. The rock tore at his shirt, but the cool, damp air was a welcome relief from the suffocating tension of the tomb above.

As he scrambled through the narrow passage, he heard the muffled, indignant shouts of Dr. Finch behind him. They were coming down.

He emerged onto a hidden ledge overlooking a desolate stretch of coastline. Moonlight silvered the waves, and a small, weathered fishing dhow bobbed in the shallows. Arthur knew the captain, a local monk named Elias who had helped him navigate the Sinai backcountry for years. He scrambled down the cliffside, sliding on loose shale, and splashed into the surf.

"Elias!" Arthur hissed, waving his arms.

The dhow swung around, its lanterns dim. Within minutes, Arthur was aboard, gasping for air as the engine hummed to life. He looked back at the cliffs. Figures stood on the ridge—Finch's guards, their silhouettes sharp against the horizon. A flash of gunfire echoed, a bullet snapping through the sail, but they were already pulling into the dark safety of the open sea.

Once they were a safe distance out, Arthur ducked into the tiny, lantern-lit cabin. He laid the codex on the rough-hewn table. Under the steady light, he pulled a magnifying glass from his bag. He had to be sure.

He pored over the Greek again, his heart sinking and soaring in equal measure. There, in the margins of the manuscript, were small, hand-drawn annotations—shorthand marks he hadn't noticed in the heat of the tomb. They weren't just Scripture; they were a roadmap. They pointed to a secondary collection, rumored to be held in a private archive in the heart of Alexandria.

If this fragment was the key, then the archive held the vault.

"Mr. Croft," a calm voice drifted from the deck. It was Elias, peering through the cabin doorway. "The Institute has eyes everywhere. They will know you are headed for the city. And Dr. Finch? He is not a man who accepts defeat."

Arthur looked at the ancient, fragile papyrus. It felt heavier now—not with weight, but with responsibility.

"He's not looking for history, Elias," Arthur replied, his voice hardening. "He's looking for control. If he finds what's in Alexandria, he won't just misinterpret the text—he'll use it to silence the very message of grace this codex protects."

Arthur stood up, rolling the manuscript carefully into its protective tube. The mission had expanded. It was no longer just about recovery; it was about protecting the integrity of the message itself.

He stared out the porthole as the coast of Egypt faded into the night. The sea was dark, the path ahead was dangerous, and the Institute was closing in. But for the first time in his career, Arthur realized he wasn't just chasing a relic.

He was keeping a promise to the ancients.

"Alexandria," Arthur said, his eyes narrowing as he gripped the railing. "We sail for Alexandria."

*  *  *

Arthur has escaped with the codex, but Dr. Finch is a powerful adversary who will stop at nothing to recover the document and secure his influence. As Arthur heads toward the archives in Alexandria, what hidden dangers do you think await him in the city's ancient, labyrinthine libraries?

The Free Grace Study Bible: John 8:51

I am pleased to share the latest installment of my ongoing work on The Free Grace Study Bible. Today's post features my translation of John 8:51, paired with original commentary and translation notes designed to clarify the meaning of the Greek text. I have provided the Greek-to-English rendering first, followed by the supporting notes that explain my translation choices. 

John 8:51 

Greek Textus Receptus

ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐάν τις τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐμὸν τηρήσῃ, θάνατον οὐ μὴ θεωρήσῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

Free Grace Translation

"Truly, Truly, I say to you, if anyone takes My Word to heart, he shall certainly never see death."

Bible Translation Notes

Grk. ἀμὴν ἀμὴν. Literally, Amen, Amen.

Grk. τηρήσῃ (aor. subj. act.), from τηρέω. For the meaning "takes to heart," cf. the NIV's rendering of τηροῦντες (the participle) in Rev. 1:3. Also see the definition of τηρέω in Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, which conveys the same meaning: "to persist in obedience, keep, observe, fulfill, pay attention to, ... something ... τὸν λόγον J 8:51f, 55; 14:23; 15:20ab; 17:6; 1J 2:5; Rv 3:8. ... 10:a. ... J 14:24. ... Rv 22:7, ... vs. 9. ... 1:3. ὁ τηρῶν τὰ ἔργα μου the one who takes my deeds to heart Rv 2:26. Absolutely, but with the object easily supplied from the context τήρει pay attention to it 3:3." (Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition, p. 1002, s.v. τηρέω, definition 3, ellipsis added. It is significant to note that in the 1st edition of Bauer's Lexicon, the gloss "to persist in obedience" is absent from the definition; it was added in later editions.) Most theologians define τηρήσῃ in John 8:51 in the sense of perseverance. Commenting on Jn. 8:51, Godet's statement is typical when he says: "What encouragement to those who should persevere!" (Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, 3 Vols., Vol. III, p. 351.) But the meaning of τηρήσῃ may simply be "pay attention to" or "take to heart" (as Bauer noted). Most English versions translate τηρήσῃ in John 8:51 (in the general sense) as "keeps" (e.g. KJV, NKJV, ERV, ESV, NASB, etc.). But is this the most exact rendering of the word in this context? Because in Jn. 8:51, "keeps" is often misunderstood by lay readers (and others) as "maintaining performance" (i.e. perseverance). In this regard, the use of the aorist subjunctive (τηρήσῃ) is especially significant. While many commentators import a requirement for "perseverance" into this verse, the aorist aspect focuses on the event itself rather than a linear process of ongoing obedience. As Dillow observes, "The word 'keep' (terese), however, is an aorist, and therefore probably no durative or continuous force is intended." (Joseph Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings, 1992 Edition, p. 400.) This observation aligns with the foundational work of A. T. Robertson (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th Edition, pp. 848-850), who affirms that the aorist subjunctive shows "punctiliar" action and that it conveys the action of the verb as occurring at a "point" in time, as opposed to linear or durative action expressed by the Greek present subjunctive. (Ibid., pp. 848-849.) Robertson notes that it is typical for Greek writers to "observe the distinction between the aorist and present subjunctive, as Englishmen observe that between 'shall' and 'will,' unconsciously and without any appearance of deliberately emphasizing the difference." (Ibid., p. 850.) But Robertson points out "that John employs the two forms with great deliberateness, even in the same sentence," to distinguish between the beginning of an action and its development. (Ibid., p. 850.) Robertson highlights "that John makes the sharp distinction between the aorist and present subjunctive that is common between the aorist and imperfect indicative. Cf. ἐάν τις τηρήσῃ (Jo. 8:51)." (Ibid., p. 850.) Robertson adds that "Paul also knows the punctiliar force of the aorist subjunctive. Cf. ἁμαρτήσωμεν (Ro. 6:15) with ἐπιμένωμεν (6:1), where the point lies chiefly in the difference of tense." (Ibid., p. 850.) The New Testament scholar W. Harold Mare affirms: "The present subjunctive forms [of verbs] stress durative (or, linear) kind of action, and the aorist subjunctive forms stress the punctiliar (or, point, or definite) kind of action." (Mare, Mastering New Testament Greek [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977], p. 62.) Thus, if we understand "keeping" Christ's word in the Johannine sense—not as a lifetime of legalistic adherence, but as "taking to heart" the truth of His message—the aorist tense is perfectly suited to the moment of faith. It views the "taking to heart" as a singular, decisive event. Consequently, the aorist does not support the idea of a "probationary perseverance" often read into the text; rather, it highlights the definitive nature of the condition: once the Word is taken to heart, the promise ("will never see death") becomes the believer's present and secure possession. Expounding on the meaning of τηρέω as used in the Gospels, Macaulay is correct to say: "He who 'keeps' Christ's 'word' (or 'words') is he who first attends to it, and lets the wonder and significance of the message it conveys sink into his mind, and who then appropriates and makes his own by faith the revelation it brings. To pay no heed to Christ's 'word' (or 'words'), to be at no pains to think out the purport of His appearance in history, and of the tidings of salvation He proclaimed; or, the meaning and worth of the gospel having in some measure been realized, to set it aside, to neglect it, to occupy one's self seriously with other things only—that is the attitude to Himself which Christ describes when He speaks of a man not 'keeping His word.' To 'keep' Christ's word, in short, is to take Christ at His Word—to believe in Him (cf. Jn 8:51-52, 14:23-24, 15:20, 17:6)." (A. B. Macaulay, "KEEPING," in A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, ed. James Hastings [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906], 2 Vols., Vol. I, p. 926.) It is also common for Bible expositors (typically non Free Grace Bible expositors) to connect Jesus' words in John 8:51 with His earlier statements in 8:31 (cf. Godet, op. cited, p. 350). But regarding the words of Jesus in Jn. 8:51, Lange says: "It is...incorrect to assume (with Calvin, De Wette) that these words after a pause were addressed to believers only, or to connect them (with Lücke) with John 8:31, instead of John 8:50." (John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976], 12 Vols., Vol. 9, p. 296.) While Jesus' statement in Jn. 8:31 is addressed to believers, His statement in Jn. 8:51 is addressed to unbelievers. Most Bible commentators blur this important distinction. Commenting on John 8:51, Dr. Constable correctly summarizes: "The central purpose of Jesus' mission was not glory for Himself but glory for His Father—by providing salvation for humankind. Jesus' introduction of this strong statement [in Jn. 8:51] emphasized its vital importance. Following Jesus' word is synonymous with believing on Him (cf. 5:24; 8:24). The 'death' in view here is eternal death (cf. 11:25)." (Thomas L. Constable, Notes on John, 2026 Edition, comment on Jn. 8:51, emphasis his, brackets added.)

Grk. θάνατον...εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. Literally, he will certainly never behold death. Or, he will never see death forever. Guthrie explains two possible interpretations: "Jesus must have meant that his followers would have a totally different approach to the experience of death from others, an experience which would remove from it its terrors. An alternative interpretation would be to assume that Jesus was referring to spiritual death, which his own followers would not experience. This is possible, but there is nothing in the preamble to prepare his hearers for such a transference of thought." (Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology, p. 825.) Yet Jesus often spoke spiritually (even cryptically) without His listeners understanding the deeper meaning or significance of His words (cf. John chapter 4). Many Bible commentators take the view that in John 8:51, Jesus is indeed speaking of spiritual death (e.g. Gill, Ellicott, Alford, Robertson, Ryrie, Constable, Hart, etc.). The one who believes in Jesus may die physically, but will never die eternally (i.e. never spiritually). Commenting on John 8:51 and the phrase θάνατον οὐ μὴ θεωρήσῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, A. T. Robertson affirms: "He shall never see death (thanaton ou mē theōrēsēi eis ton aiona). Spiritual death, of course. Strong double negative ou mē with first aorist active subjunctive of theōreō. The phrase 'see death' is a Hebraism (Psa. 89:48) and occurs with idein (see) in Luke 2:26; Heb. 11:5. No essential difference meant between horaō ['see'] and theōreō ['behold']." (Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 Vols., Vol. V, p. 156.)

Grk. εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. Literally, into the age. Or, into eternity. This is a figure of speech meaning "forever". Cf. William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Workbook, 4th Edition, p. 69, footnote 6. Also see Isaiah 48:12 in Brenton's Septuagint translation, where the same phrase is used to describe God, and is translated as "for ever". Furthermore, secular papyri confirm this usage as standard: Moulton and Milligan (The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, p. 16) cite a 3rd/4th-century A.D. report from Oxyrhynchus in which a crowd cries, Ἄγουστοι κύριοι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, "the Emperors for ever!" (P Oxy I. 41). In light of this lexical evidence and the emphatic nature of the Greek construction, I have translated the phrase θάνατον οὐ μὴ θεωρήσῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα in John 8:51b as "he shall certainly never see death," following the interpretation of Alfred Plummer. Commenting on John 8:51b, Plummer writes: "Literally, shall certainly not behold death for ever. But 'for ever' belongs, like the negative, to the verb, not to 'death.' It does not mean 'he shall see death, but the death shall not be eternal:' rather 'he shall certainly never see death,' i.e. he already has eternal life (5.24) and shall never lose it." (Plummer, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 194. Note: The Roman numeral in the original has been updated to the current format.) Jesus' statement in John 8:51 is both definitive and emphatic: οὐ μὴ is in itself a double negative (the "nth degree" of emphatic negative in Greek), and to it Jesus adds εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, "into eternity"—i.e. forever! Think of it: forever never to behold the last enemy—DEATH, for Jesus went into the grave to conquer and defeat it. Then "Up from the grave He arose, With a mighty triumph o’er His foes, He arose a Victor from the dark domain, And He lives forever with His saints to reign. He arose! He arose! Hallelujah! Christ arose!" When assailed by doubt, meditate on these words of Jesus: "forever never"! That is, the believer in Christ is promised that he or she "will forever never behold death." What a promise! What a Savior! Reynolds affirms: "The promise is dazzling: 'He shall never behold,' i.e. steadily or exhaustively know by experience, what death means and is. He may pass through physical death, he may (γεύσηται) taste of dissolution, he may come before the judgment-seat, he may see corruption (ἰδεῖν διαφθοράν); but he will not behold (θεωρεῖν) death. He will never know what death is (cf. here; ch. 4.14; 5.24; 6.51, where the Saviour speaks of the 'living water,' and 'life eternal,' and 'living bread,' which whoso partaketh shall never die. See also ch. 11.26). He does not tell his disciples that they shall not see the grave, but that in the deepest sense they shall never die." (H. R. Reynolds, The Gospel of St. John, Vol. I, in The Pulpit Commentary, ed. H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell [London: Funk & Wagnalls, n.d.], p. 370, comment on Jn. 8:51. Note: The Roman numerals in the original have been updated to the current format.)

Grk. αἰῶνα, from αἰῶν.  Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines αἰῶν as: "1. a long period of time, without reference to beginning or end, ... (b) of time to come which, if it has no end, is also known as eternity (so commonly in Gk. literature: Plato, et al.); εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ... to eternity, eternally, in perpetuity: live J 6:51, 58; ... remain J 8:35ab; 12:34; ... be with someone J 14:16. ... In Johannine usage the term is used formulaically without emphasis on eternity [...]: never again thirst J 4:14; never see death 8:51f; cp. 11:26; never be lost 10:28; never (=by no means) 13:8." (Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition, p. 32, s.v. αἰῶν, definition 1b, emphasis his, ellipsis and brackets added.) It's unclear what Bauer means by saying: "In Johannine usage the term [αἰῶνα] is used formulaically without emphasis on eternity." W. E. Vine's explanation sheds light on the topic, though it seems to somewhat contradict Bauer's statement. Commenting on αἰῶν and its NT usage, Vine states that it "signifies a period of indefinite duration." (Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 33, s.v. αἰῶν.) Vine goes on to say: "The phrases containing this word should not be rendered literally but consistently with its sense of indefinite duration. Thus eis ton aiōna [as in Jn. 8:51] does not mean 'unto the age' but 'for ever' (see, e.g., Heb. 5:6). The Greeks contrasted that which came to an end with that which was expressed by this phrase, which shows that they conceived of it as expressing interminable [i.e. endless] duration." (Ibid.) Thus Bauer is correct that the "emphasis" of αἰῶν in Johannine usage is not strictly on "eternity" per se, but rather the term is used as part of a rhetorical idiom expressing strong negation (οὐ μὴ coupled with εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, cf. Jn. 4:14, 6:51, 8:51, 10:28, 11:26, etc.). The "emphasis" isn't on the philosophical nature of "Eternity" as a concept; instead, the whole phrase functions as a "super-negative." It's a formula used to say "Never, ever, under any circumstances." By way of contrast, Vine isn't so much looking at the rhetorical formula; he is looking at the inherent meaning of the word itself. Vine argues that the reason the Greeks used αἰῶν in these phrases is precisely because it signifies "interminable [i.e. endless] duration." To Vine, you cannot separate the "formula" from the "meaning." If the formula is meant to say "never," it only works because the word αἰῶν carries the weight of "forever." Thus, while Bauer and Vine seem to disagree, they are actually describing two sides of the same coin. Bauer is saying: "Don't get bogged down in a philosophical study of 'Eternity' every time you see this word in John's Gospel; recognize that John is using it as a standard way to express a total negation (Never!)." Vine is saying: "The reason John uses this specific word for his 'Never!' formula is that the word actually means 'interminable duration' (Eternity)." While Bauer focuses on the formulaic usage, the lexical reality (as Vine clarifies) is that the term functions to convey "interminable duration," which is synonymous with the theological concept of eternity. And so it seems that the distinction Bauer makes is a bit of a "distinction without a difference" regarding the final meaning. If a word is used formulaically to express that something will "never" happen—and that "never" is based on the concept of time having no end—then the word is functioning as a technical term for eternity. Whether the "emphasis" is on the finality of the statement or the philosophy of eternity, the result is the same: the action described (not thirsting, not dying) lasts forever. This suggests that even if the translator recognizes the formulaic nature of John's Greek (the repeated "never ... unto the age"), the English rendering must still account for the lexical reality that the duration being described is, in fact, eternal.

Free Grace Study Notes

To obey God's Word does not import good works into the offer of salvation, but rather it means to obey the gospel by believing it. In other words, obey the command to believe! As D. L. Moody has said: "It is obedience that God wants. You may ask, 'What may I do to obey God?' You are just to believe on his Son and be saved. Will you obey him to-day?" (Moody, The Gospel Awakening [Chicago: 1885], p. 330.)

John F. Hart summarizes: "With strong emotion (truly, truly), Jesus asserted (v. 51) that anyone who keeps His word (i.e., believes) will never see eternal death." (Hart, John, in The Moody Bible Commentary, ed. Michael Rydelnik and Michael Vanlaningham, p. 1633, commentary on John 8:51.)

The promise of John 8:51 is not a future reward for those who endure, but a present possession for those who, by faith, "take to heart" the Word of God today.

The Adventures of Arthur Croft: The Sinai Salvation

Episode 1: The Sinai Salvation 

[Back to Series Hub]

The desert sun hammered relentlessly against the ancient limestone as Arthur Croft dusted away the last layers of sand from the heavy stone seal. This wasn't just any ruin; it was the "Library of the Ascetics," lost to the shifting dunes of the Sinai Peninsula for nearly fifteen hundred years.

Arthur, his broad-brimmed hat tilted against the glare and a tattered satchel slung over his shoulder, felt the familiar thrill. Somewhere within this tomb, a prize more valuable than gold awaited him—a rumored fragment of a 4th-century codex containing crucial passages from Paul's Epistles.

But he wasn't alone.

The wind carried the faint sound of an engine—unmistakably, the armored truck of Dr. Alistair Finch. Finch, the head of the "Institute of the Pure Text," was also searching for the codex. He wasn’t interested in the history or the linguistics; he sought the document to support his own narrow, legalistic interpretation of Scripture, desperate to bury any evidence that challenged his rigid views.

Arthur pushed harder against the stone door. With a protesting groan, it moved.

Inside, the cool darkness was a stark contrast to the blinding heat. Arthur activated his headlamp, its beam illuminating a small, dust-filled chamber. There, resting on a pedestal carved with faded Christian symbols, was a lead-lined box.

The Codex.

But his triumph was short-lived. A shadow fell across the entrance. Dr. Finch, flanked by two armed guards, stepped inside.

"You're too late, Mr. Croft," Finch sneered. "The Institute will preserve the proper understanding of this text. Your... reckless interpretations of 'grace' will find no support here."

"Alistair, this is a part of history," Arthur countered, stepping carefully between Finch and the pedestal. "It's about what it does say. In its original language."

He didn't wait for a response. Spotting a loose flagstone, Arthur threw his weight against it. A narrow chute opened at his feet. With one final, defiant look at Finch, he grabbed the box and slid feet-first into the darkness.

It was a rough descent, but Arthur emerged into a hidden grotto, a single, high window casting a shaft of moonlight onto a stone table.

His heart pounding, Arthur carefully opened the box. The papyrus inside was incredibly delicate, but it was there. His gaze immediately locked onto a specific section of Paul's letter to the Ephesians, his mind already parsing the faded Greek script.

“τῇ γὰρ χάριτί ἐστε σεσωσμένοι διὰ πίστεως...”

His eyes widened in recognition. This wasn't just any passage. This confirmed a nuance that Finch had been desperate to suppress.

“For by grace you have been saved through faith...”

The codex's unique rendering of pistis (faith) as a receptive trust, not a work-based striving, directly supported the "Free Grace" perspective. Arthur traced the lines of the Greek with trembling fingers. Finch wanted to use this text to enslave men; Arthur had just found the script of liberty!

The sounds of pursuit echoed from the chute above. Clutching the fragile codex to his chest, Arthur peered up at the narrow shaft of moonlight. The adventure was far from over, but the most important discovery had already been made. He had found the message of grace, preserved in the very script of the ancients.

* * *

Study Insight: In this passage from Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, the Greek word pistis is often misunderstood as an "active work" rather than a "receptive trust." In Arthur's journey, we see that the ancient manuscript emphasizes the gift aspect of grace, rather than a collaborative effort. For a deeper dive into the syntax of Ephesians 2:8, see the article by Dr. Charlie Bing, "Understanding the Faith that Saves" (GraceNotes, Number 102).

The Free Grace Study Bible: John 8:47

Here is an excerpt from The Free Grace Study Bible that I'm currently working on. The following "Free Grace Translation" is my personal translation of John 8:47 with accompanying Bible Translation & Free Grace Notes. Enjoy!

John 8:47 

Greek Textus Receptus 

ὁ ὢν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀκούει· διὰ τοῦτο ὑμεῖς οὐκ ἀκούετε, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκ ἐστέ. 

Free Grace Translation 

"The [one] [who] is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear, because you are not of God." 

Bible Translation Notes 

Grk. ὢν. Literally, being (cf. Jn. 8:47 in Smith's Literal Translation). Not quite "is" because ὢν is a present active participle. This word (ὢν) is somewhat difficult to translate into English in this context, because here in John 8:47 ὢν identifies the person "as begotten anew by the Spirit of God" (J. H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v. εἰμί, definition 3d). But that idea employs a passive verb in English, whereas ὢν is active (the participle presents the subject as actively existing in that state). This of course is in contrast to the teaching of Calvinism, which claims that the new birth is solely and completely the gift of God bestowed upon people unconditionally without them having any active participation in it at all. But here in John 8:47, Jesus suggests otherwise. And He does so using the little Greek word ὢν. This participle is connected to the phrase "of God," denoting one who has been begotten of God (cf. J. H. Thayer). While the participle itself describes a present state, Jesus immediately connects that state with the act of hearing God's Word and grounds the failure to hear in the individual in a context of moral rebuke. This indicates that the condition of being "of God" is inseparably connected with hearing and believing, reflecting the Free Grace emphasis on responsibility and faith. Commenting on John 8:47, Godet affirms: "the expression, to be of God, designates the state of a soul placed under the influence of divine agency. Such a state does not exclude, but implies, the free determination of man. Otherwise, the tone of reproach which prevails in this verse would be unjust, and even absurd." (Frederic Godet, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, 3 Vols., Vol. II, p. 343.) To clarify, while the source of the life is God (the origin indicated by ἐκ), the participle ὢν describes the believer's present, active state in response to that life. As Paul Enns notes in The Moody Handbook of Theology, "The Bible is the objective and authoritative Word of God whether or not a person responds to it (John 8:47; 12:48)." (Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology [Chicago: Moody Press, 1989], p. 162.)

Grk. διὰ τοῦτο. This phrase can be translated as "on account of this," "because of this," or "for this reason". Here in John 8:47, I chose not to translate διὰ τοῦτο as "because of this" because the word ὅτι can also be translated as "because," and I wanted to maintain as much as possible the distinction in English that exists in the Greek. This distinction is noted by Bauer in his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, when he writes: "διὰ τοῦτο ... ὅτι for this reason ..., (namely) that J 8:47" (Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition, p. 732, s.v. ὅτι, definition 4a, ellipsis and emphasis his).

Free Grace Study Notes 

Commenting on John 8:47, Augustine says concerning Jesus that "foreknowing those who should yet believe, them He called of God, because [they were] yet to be born again of God by the adoption of regeneration. To these apply the words 'He that is of God hears the words of God.' But that which follows, 'You therefore hear them not, because you are not of God,' was said to those who were not only corrupted by sin (for this evil was common to all), but also foreknown as those who would not believe with the faith that alone could deliver them from the bondage of sin [cf. Jn. 6:64]. On this account He foreknew that those to whom He so spoke would continue in that which they derived from the devil, that is, in their sins, and would die in the impiety in which they resembled him; and would not come to the regeneration wherein they would be the children of God, that is, be born of the God by whom they were created as men. In accordance with this predestinating purpose [according to divine foreknowledge, cf. Rom. 8:29-30; 1 Pet. 1:2] did the Lord speak; and not that He had found any man among them who either by regeneration was already of God, or by nature was no longer of God." (Augustine, edited by Marcus Dods, The Works of Aurelius Augustine [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1874], Vol. XI. Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John, 2 Vols., Vol. II, p. 53. See Tractate 42, Section 16.) Augustine's comments reflect a strong emphasis on divine foreknowledge, yet they still preserve the moral responsibility implied in Jesus' rebuke—an element consistent with the Free Grace perspective.

The Free Grace Study Bible: Project Update #1

Project Goal: To provide a translation and study resource that preserves the absolute freeness of Grace against legalistic bias. 

Current Focus: The Gospel of John (Verse-by-Verse)

* * *

A project that I've been working on for a few years now is The Free Grace Study Bible. I decided to start linking to it here in the posts in order to give updates and share my progress, and also so that a link to it will always be in the posts that show up when scrolling through my past posts on a cell phone. Just some free advertising for Jesus! I expect some pushback from those in the Calvinist or Lordship Legalist camps, but that's okay. I welcome their comments, as I believe open dialogue is the best way to test our views against the Bible and see which ones actually hold up.

The Free Grace Study Bible also includes my personal translation of the New Testament, which I've simply titled the "Free Grace Translation". Thus far I've translated Mark 1:1-22 and John 1:1-8:39. I started with Mark 1:1-22 thanks to Bill Mounce (see my post on that here). Although our theological views differ significantly (he's a Calvinist and a Lordship Legalist who generally promotes that error), his resources related to Biblical Greek provided a starting point for my own work. After translating Mark 1:1-22, I shifted to focus on translating the Gospel of John. I'm currently working through translating it verse-by-verse and chapter-by-chapter. 

This has been a slow process. I could translate The Gospel of John much more quickly if I didn't add in the Bible Translation Notes and the Free Grace Study Notes. But I decided to add those in (at least for the Gospel of John) in order to preemptively respond to any naysayers who might otherwise want to disparage the translation, not from a biblical basis, but rather due to a Calvinistic bias disguised as objectivity. 

By providing Bible Translation Notes and the Free Grace Study Notes, it helps to show the solid biblical underpinnings for my translation and why, in many ways, it is an improvement upon the more well-known and "popular" Bible translations, such as the revered King James Version. While the Bible Translation Notes and the Free Grace Study Notes slow the process exponentially, I believe they are vital for showing the "why" behind the text, though I may eventually prioritize the Translation Notes focused on syntax and grammar as I move forward.

My prayer is that God will bless this project and that The Free Grace Translation & Study Bible will be a blessing to many. As I labor on this, I'm reminded of the historical weight of this truth. As Augustine said: "Grace, unless it is free, is not grace." And if some people aren't particularly fond of Augustine that's okay, he wasn't right on everything. Here's the apostle Paul saying the same thing more pointedly: "Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24).

A Critique of Bill Fallon's "Repentance" Series, Part 1

Bill Fallon of FreeGraceResources.org has written a 10-Part "Repentance" Word Study in which he attempts to prove the non-traditional view of Zane Hodges, which is that "repentance" (Grk. metanoia) is not required for salvation but rather is required in order to achieve some supposed "harmony with God" (something akin to "enlightenment" in Zen Buddism?) prior to and acting as an impetus toward saving faith.

It should be noted at the outset that my critique of Mr. Fallon's "Repentance" Word Study is not meant to be exhaustive. I will simply "hit the highlights" and draw attention to a few key particulars where Mr. Fallon's "harmony with God" view of repentance especially diverges from the Scriptural teaching on the subject and from the traditional Free Grace view of it.

On the positive side, I did find Mr. Fallon's study on repentance to be an interesting and thought-provoking read. Obviously I don't completely agree with it in all aspects, although of course there were areas of agreement. I applaud Mr. Fallon's desire to keep the gospel of God's grace free and unencumbered by man-made additions. In regard to this, the "Conclusion and Summary" of his Word Study (Part 7) is quite good in terms of his overall goal of keeping the gospel free. But as he said, we must also be careful not to "throw out the baby with the bath water." Unfortunately this is exactly what Mr. Fallon has done with "Repentance" as it relates to eternal salvation! He argues that it's not required. And thus for all intents and purposes, he has in effect "thrown it out" as far as eternal life is concerned. In his view, repentance is a false addition to the saving message that needs to be "thrown out" of gospel presentations. Notice the irony: Fallon tried to "throw out the bathwater" (legalism) but ended up throwing out the "baby" (biblical metanoia). How unbiblical! But in terms of presentation, I'd say that Mr. Fallon's study was a fair summary of the "harmony with God" view of repentance. And to the same extent, it was a (mostly) fair interaction with the traditional Free Grace view of repentance as "a change of mind" (Grk. metanoia). He obviously disagrees with the traditional Free Grace view, but I appreciated Mr. Fallon's humility, notably when he said in reference to the "change of mind" (i.e. traditional Free Grace) view of repentance: "There are Bible teachers who are smarter and more knowledgeable than me who endorse that teaching."[1] 

Mr. Fallon's "Engulfed Room" Illustration

In an effort to move beyond the traditional "change of mind" definition of metanoia, Mr. Fallon employs the following illustration of an engulfed room to argue that one can move from ignorance to belief without actually "changing" their mind. He presents the scenario as follows: 

"Let me illustrate. (An illustration does not prove doctrine; it seeks to illustrate and clarify doctrine). Suppose that you and I were in a room in a large building and I told you that the next room was fully engulfed in flames. Would you believe me? Your answer would likely depend upon several factors; Do you have any other related input? Do I have a sufficient pattern of trustworthiness with you? Are you having a bad day? etc. Now suppose that you open the door and immediately were almost overcome with the heat and the flames, it would matter little whether or not you believed me before as it would be almost impossible for you to doubt the truth of my warning then. Now, more directly related to this matter, suppose you were in the same room in the same situation except that I was not there to warn you. You might not have been thinking about anything, especially about the condition of the next room or what I might have told you if I had been there; You open the door and immediately are almost overcome with heat and flames; Now what? Did you change your mind about the condition of the next room? Of course not. You were not even thinking about it. You encountered a very convincing realization. You had not believed anything either way about the condition of the next room until you opened the door."[2]

Why Mr. Fallon's Illustration is Flawed

The central error in Mr. Fallon's illustration is his restrictive definition of what it means to "change one's mind." Fallon argues that the man didn't change his mind because he "was not even thinking about" a fire in the next room, and so how could he change his mind? Fallon says that the man didn't believe anything either way about the condition of the next room until he opened the door and realized the truth. Only then did he believe it. But ironically, Mr. Fallon's illustration actually proves that the man did change his mind! How so? Precisely because he realized the truth and believed it! (The man obviously didn't realize it or believe it beforehand, thus a change of mind occurred when he believed.) The man didn't need to be aware of the fire or preemptively deny it in order to change his mind about it. Because even if the man wasn't previously thinking about a fire in the next room, there was a change of mind from believing nothing about it to suddenly believing it! The fact is, the man didn't believe it until he did. That is obviously a change of mind. Whatever reason the man had for not believing it (e.g. ignorance, etc.) is beside the point. Actively or knowingly disbelieving something is not a requirement for a change of mind. If new facts are presented and a person believes something for the first time, they obviously believe differently than they did before. By definition that is a change of mind. The point is: There was a change of mind from "not even thinking about it" to then suddenly thinking about it and actually believing it! The "thinking about it" is obviously part of believing because there must be content to believe. And "not thinking about it" is contrasted with "thinking about it," so by definition there is a change of mind. In other words, omission (not thinking about the fire) followed by commission (believing in the fire) constitutes a change. The reality is: you either believe there is a fire, or you don't. Since the man didn't before and does now, his mind has changed. I should also point out that the Greek word for repentance, metanoia, literally means "after-mind" or "change of mind." It does not require a "reversal" of a specific previous thought, but rather a new direction of the mind. Even a man walking in total darkness who suddenly sees a light has changed his "mind" (perception/direction) regarding the path (cf. Psa. 119:130; Isa. 59:9-10; Acts 17:27; 2 Cor. 4:6). To summarize: Mr. Fallon has made a category error by conflating active rejection with a simple unbelief. A person does not need to be actively "anti-fire" to change their mind upon seeing flames; one only needs to move from a state of ignorance to a state of conviction. To say it another way, moving from a state of non-belief or simple unawareness ("zero") to a state of vivid conviction ("one") is, by definition, a change of mind.

Mr. Fallon Misrepresents Lewis Sperry Chafer

I would also like to address the fact that Mr. Fallon completely misrepresents a statement by L. S. Chafer. Mr. Fallon quotes Chafer, but only partially and inaccurately. Referring to Chafer, Fallon states that "though he was a proponent of 'repent/change of mind and believe in Jesus' view, [Chafer] honestly admits that there is no Biblical support that repentance is required for receiving eternal life."[3] Fallon then quotes the statement by Chafer when he says: "From this overwhelming mass of irrefutable evidence [the absence of repentance in John, only one occurrence in Romans, its absence in Paul's reply of Acts 16:31], it is clear that the New Testament does not impose repentance upon the unsaved as a condition of salvation."[4] But Mr. Fallon is quite mistaken in his conclusion because in light of the larger context of what Chafer wrote, it's clear that what he meant is that "the New Testament does not impose repentance upon the unsaved as a [separate] condition of salvation [in addition to faith in Christ, because repentance is included in believing]." This is abundantly clear from the context of what Chafer wrote leading up to the statement that Fallon took out of context.[5] This understanding of Chafer's statement is also quite clear from statements he made elsewhere to the same effect. For example, in his classic book Grace, Chafer says: "Repentance, which means 'a change of mind,' is never excluded from the terms of salvation; it is included as an essential part of believing."[6] And in his book Dispensationalism, Chafer similarly declares that "the requirement on the human side for present salvation is belief in Christ as Savior, which belief includes all the repentance (which is a change of mind) that a spiritually dead person can produce."[7] It is regrettable that Mr. Fallon resorts to intellectual sleight of hand in his attempt to lend a veneer of credibility to his false view of repentance, specifically by distorting Chafer's actual position on the subject.

Bible Verses Showing Repentance is Required for Salvation

Is repentance required for salvation? What does the Bible say? Regarding this, Mr. Fallon writes: "A basic Scriptural argument is that of all the 112 references to repent and its cognates in the Bible that I can find no statement made to the effect that we must repent in order to be justified, i.e. eternally saved. If this is so, then we are on 'very thin ice' claiming that repentance is also required when the Bible never states that it is required and is extremely clear that we simply need to believe in Jesus to save us."[8] In response to Mr. Fallon, it is important to examine what he does and doesn't say. Notice that Mr. Fallon is careful not to be dogmatic on the issue. Instead, Fallon merely says "I can find no statement," which is obviously quite different than saying "There is no statement." In like manner, Fallon's conclusion is quite tentative in that he says: "If this is so," rather than the more dogmatic "this is so." I appreciate that Mr. Fallon is hedging or qualifying his statement and not being dogmatic. However, the point I'm making is that his conclusion is still false. His conclusion is that the Bible makes "no statement to the effect that we must repent in order to be justified." Mr. Fallon's conclusion is false because the Bible does in fact make statements to the effect that the unsaved must repent in order to be justified! Notice the following Bible verses, which are merely a representative sampling of the vast weight of biblical evidence that could be cited:

1) Mark 1:15 - "Repent and believe the gospel." This has to do with eternal salvation. The gospel saves! Commenting on this Bible verse, Mr. Fallon says: "The only Bible verse which uses the term 'repent and believe' is Mark 1:15. The context is the exhortation to believe the 'gospel of the kingdom.' This was a message to national Israel and it had to do with the earthly kingdom offered to them and not to eternal life. The Jews wanted the Kingdom but the leaders rejected their King."[9] What Mr. Fallon apparently fails to realize is that individual Israelites needed eternal salvation (from their sins!) in order to enter Christ's earthly kingdom. Jesus makes this clear in the Gospels (see Matt. 18:3, 21:28-32, 22:1-14; Mk. 8:10-12, 10:15; Jn. 3:3-5). Mr. Fallon is correct that in Mark 1:15, Jesus is speaking to the Jews. But strangely, Mr. Fallon appears to be under the false impression that the Jews didn't need eternal salvation! It should go without saying that Jesus "came into the world to save sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15)—which obviously includes the nation of Israel (i.e. the Jews). As Jesus said during His ministry to them: "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24). Commenting on Mark 1:15, Chafer states: "The Scriptures bear an uncomplicated testimony to the sinfulness of man; even the sins of those who wrote the Bible are exposed. The Old Testament declares: 'For there is no man that sinneth not' (1 Kings 8:46); 'For in thy sight shall no man living be justified' (Ps. 143:2); 'Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?' (Prov. 20:9); 'For there is not a just man on the earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not' (Eccl. 7:20). With the same end in view, the New Testament is even more emphatic. The universal practice of sin is presupposed by Christ (cf. Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:15; 6:12; Luke 24:47; John 3:3-5). The preaching of the gospel is itself an implication that salvation is needed by all. Apart from redemption, man is wrong in the sight of God. Those who fail to receive the saving grace of God are in every instance condemned."[10] 

2) Luke 5:32 - "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Interestingly, although Mr. Fallon cites Luke 5:32 as an example of a Bible verse in which the words "repentance" and "sinner" both occur in the same verse, yet he never once expounds on it anywhere in his entire study on repentance. And I wonder why? Jesus came to save sinners! (cf. 1 Timothy 1:15). This obviously has reference to eternal salvation, not a supposed preparatory act prior to saving faith. The fact is: Luke 5:32 clearly refers to eternal salvation, and thus it refutes Mr. Fallon's view that repentance is not required in order to receive eternal life. Ironically, Bob Wilkin actually affirms that Luke 5:32 refers to eternal salvation! I say "ironically" because Wilkin has since changed his view of repentance to align with the new view of repentance put forth by Zane Hodges, namely that "repentance" is merely a preparatory act where the unbeliever abandons sin and gets "in harmony with God" prior to saving faith. But before Wilkin changed his view on repentance, this is what he wrote in regards to Luke 5:32. Under the heading "Gospels-Acts Passages in Which Repentance Is a Change of Mind about Christ and a Condition of Salvation," Wilkin discusses Matthew 9:13; Mark 2:17; and Luke 5:32. And this is what he says: "Several passages in the Gospels and Acts use 'repentance' as a virtual synonym for eternal salvation. Matthew 9:13, Mark 2:17, and Luke 5:32 are parallel accounts. I have selected Mark's account as representative. In Mark 2:17 Jesus responded to scribes and Pharisees who were grumbling because Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners. He said: 'Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.' All are sinners. Jesus was not suggesting that some didn't need Him. Rather He was asserting the opposite. All who see their need are invited by Him to heed His call: 'Repent' and be saved. 'Repentance' is used here as a metonymy of cause for the effect. The cause is changing one's mind about Christ, believing in Him. The effect is eternal salvation. Thus Jesus was saying in effect: I have not come to call those who think that they are righteous, but those who recognize that they are sinners, to eternal salvation."[11] Amen!

3) Luke 24:45-48 - "Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, 'So it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things." Jesus says that the repentance is "for forgiveness of sins"! The oldest NT manuscripts read μετάνοιαν εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν: "repentance for forgiveness of sins" (Lk. 24:47, NASB). The more recent NT manuscripts read μετάνοιαν καὶ ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν: "repentance and remission of sins" (Lk. 24:47, KJV, NKJV). But as the NT scholar Alfred Plummer notes in his commentary on Luke 24:47, "The eis ['for'] (א B, Boh. Syr.) was corrected [i.e. emended] to kai ['and'] (A C D N X etc.) on account of the second eis. The eis is confirmed by [Lk.] 3.3; Mt. 26.28; Mk. 1.4: compare tēn metanoian eis zōēn (Acts 11.18). Compare also Mt. 28.19."[12] Thus, in Luke 24:47 the correct reading is "repentance for the forgiveness of sins"!

4) Acts 17:30 - "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent..." This is part of the apostle Paul's sermon on Mars Hill to the unsaved Gentiles. Clearly, the context is in regards to eternal salvation (see Acts 17:31). Concerning the word "repent" in Acts 17:30, Chafer lists it as one of the "passages which employ the word repentance as a synonym of believing (cf. Acts 17:30; Rom. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25; 2 Pet. 3:9)."[13] Chafer goes on to say: "It is true that repentance can very well be required as a condition of salvation, but then only because the change of mind which it is has been involved when turning from every other confidence to the one needful trust in Christ. Such turning about, of course, cannot be achieved without a change of mind. This vital newness of mind is a part of believing, after all, and therefore it may be and is used as a synonym for believing at times (cf. Acts 17:30; 20:21; 26:20; Rom. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25; 2 Pet. 3:9)."[14] Clearly, Paul's command to "repent" in Acts 17:30 has as its result eternal salvation. This is made clear by the context (see Acts 17:34). Once again citing Acts 17:30, Chafer affirms "that such repentance as is possible to an unsaved person in this dispensation is included in the one act of believing."[15] The fact that Paul's statement in Acts 17:30 pertains to eternal salvation is furthermore confirmed by his specific mention that God "winked at" (KJV) or "overlooked" (NKJV) sin in the Old Testament prior to the Cross. This is analogous to Paul's statement in Romans 3:25 that God in His forbearance "passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3:25b-26, NASB). Chafer notes this connection between Acts 17:30 and Romans 3:25 on several occasions, and affirms that it pertains to "Salvation Before and After the Cross".[16] 

5) Acts 20:21 - "solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." This is part of Paul's farewell address to the elders of the church in Ephesus, and it is a summary of the message he proclaimed. It is significant to notice that just three verses later (in Acts 20:24), Paul identifies this message as "the gospel of the grace of God." In light of this, to argue that faith is required for eternal salvation while repentance is not requires treating the two elements of Paul's summary in Acts 20:21 differently without textual justification, which amounts to special pleading (a logical fallacy). By placing "repentance toward God" and "faith in our Lord Jesus Christ" side-by-side as a summary of his testimony, Paul presents them as a unified response to the gospel. Consequently, because repentance and faith are so inextricably connected in this summary, to claim that repentance is not required for eternal salvation is, in effect, to claim that Paul here was not proclaiming eternal salvation. Yet it is undeniable that the apostle Paul was indeed proclaiming the message of eternal life, a message which he himself defined by these two inseparable elements. Commenting on Acts 20:21 and the phrase "repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus," A. T. Robertson affirms: "These two elements run through the Epistle to the Romans which Paul had recently written and sent from Corinth. These two elements appear in all Paul's preaching whether 'to Jews or Gentiles, to philosophers at Athens or to peasants at Lystra, he preached repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus' (Knowling)."[17] Similarly, Chafer includes Acts 20:21 in his list of salvation passages evidencing that repentance as a change of mind "is a part of believing".[18]

6) Acts 26:20 - "[Paul] kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance." Acts 26:20 must be read and interpreted in light of Acts 26:18-19, which lead up to it and provide the background context. G. Michael Cocoris (citing Bob Wilkin's dissertation on repentance) quotes Acts 26:20 and then says: "In the context of Paul's speech, 'repent, turn to God' in verse 20 is the same as faith in Christ in verse 18, because verse 19 and 20 are an explanation of verse 18 (Wilkin, dissertation, p. 90). Ironside says that Paul is simply insisting that [spiritually] sick people must recognize and acknowledge the incurableness of their terrible disease, so far as human help is concerned, in order that they may cast themselves in faith upon the Great Physician (Ironside, Except Ye Repent, pp. 62-63)."[19] Charles Ryrie gives a wonderful explanation of the text from a traditional Free Grace perspective when he writes the following summary: "In Acts 26:20, quoted above, Paul preached that men 'should repent and TURN to God.' But everyone who simply believes the gospel is by that act turning to God. This is well illustrated by Paul's statement about the Thessalonians, 'How ye TURNED TO God FROM idols to serve the living and true God' (1 Thessalonians 1:9). A MAN MAY CHANGE HIS MIND ABOUT HIS SINS AND YET NOT TURN TO GOD. HE MAY TURN TO SOMETHING ELSE. BUT THE MAN WHO ACKNOWLEDGES THE GOSPEL TO BE GOD'S MESSAGE OF SALVATION AND TRUSTS JESUS CHRIST AS HIS SAVIOR MUST OF NECESSITY IN SO DOING BOTH CHANGE HIS MIND AND TURN TO GOD IN THE ACT OF FAITH."[20]

7) 2 Peter 3:9 - "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." Chafer clearing understands this verse as pertaining to eternal salvation, particularly when he says the following: "[In John 3:16 it is written:] 'God so loved the world.' At once and with sublime propriety the whole enterprise of saving men is declared to arise in the love of God. Indeed, it is the ruined cosmos world which He loves; but this truth only enhances the lofty, yet gracious, character of that love. This is not a love for an elect company alone—as though the title, The Cosmos World, could ever be applied to the elect company who are saved out of it and whom the cosmos hates (John 15:18)—but it is a love for the cosmos which hates, which is lost, and which needs to be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9). What, indeed, would be the present wretchedness and the future despair of all men were it not for the supreme revelation that 'God is love'?"[21] Similar to Acts 17:30, Chafer lists 2 Peter 3:9 as one of the "passages which employ the word repentance as a synonym of believing (cf. Acts 17:30; Rom. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25; 2 Pet. 3:9)."[22] Chafer goes on to say: "It is true that repentance can very well be required as a condition of salvation, but then only because the change of mind which it is has been involved when turning from every other confidence to the one needful trust in Christ. Such turning about, of course, cannot be achieved without a change of mind. This vital newness of mind is a part of believing, after all, and therefore it may be and is used as a synonym for believing at times (cf. Acts 17:30; 20:21; 26:20; Rom. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25; 2 Pet. 3:9)."[23] 

Having surveyed these seven representative passages of Holy Writ in regards to the word "repentance" (Grk. metanoia, a change of mind), it can be concluded that the Bible does in fact require this repentance in order for unbelievers to obtain eternal life/eternal salvation. This is confirmed by  respected Free Grace theologians such as Lewis Sperry Chafer, H. A. Ironside, Charles Ryrie, and G. Michael Cocoris, just to name a few. Therefore, Mr. Fallon's contention that "Repentance is not presented in the Word of God as being a requirement for eternal life"[24] is not only false, but furthermore it is a serious misrepresentation of the truth of God's Word in regard to a most important subject of eternal consequence—indeed, eternal salvation: the great doctrine of repentance.

References:

[1] Bill Fallon, "Repentance Word Study: Some Practical Considerations".

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., endnote 7, brackets added.

[4] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, p. 376, brackets added by Mr. Fallon.

[5] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, pp. 372-378. See under the heading "REPENT AND BELIEVE."

[6] L. S. Chafer, Grace, 1922 Edition, p. 18.

[7] L. S. Chafer, "Dispensationalism," Bibliotheca Sacra (October-December, 1936), Vol. 93, Number 372, pp. 436-437.

[8] Bill Fallon, "Repentance Word Study: Some Practical Considerations," emphasis his.

[9] Bill Fallon, "Repentance Word Study: Conclusion and Summary," footnote 1. Some argue that in Mark 1:15 "repent and believe" constitute two distinct conditions, but that is not necessarily the case. Regarding this, Bob Wilkin has stated: "after John was in prison Jesus said 'Repent, and (kai) believe in the gospel' (Mark 1:15). He might have meant 'Repent, that is (ascensive use of kai), believe in the gospel.' If so, He equated the two." (Wilkin, "Repentance and Salvation, Part 4: New Testament Repentance: Repentance in the Gospels and Acts," bible.org.) 

[10] L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, p. 281. 

[11] Bob Wilkin, "Repentance and Salvation, Part 4: New Testament Repentance: Repentance in the Gospels and Acts," bible.org.

[12] Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke, p. 563. 

[13] L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, p. 377.

[14] L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 7, p. 265.

[15] L. S. Chafer, Salvation, p. 49, emphasis his.

[16] See L. S. Chafer, Major Bible Themes, 1930 Edition, pp. 39-40; L. S. Chafer, Major Bible Themes, Revised Edition, p. 183. See under the heading: "Salvation Before and After the Cross."

[17] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 3, p. 350, commentary on Acts 20:21.

[18] L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 7, pg. 265.

[19] G. Michael Cocoris, Repentance: The Most Misunderstood Word in the Bible, p. 55.  

[20] Charles C. Ryrie, "Soteriology and Evangelism" Teaching Notes, pp. 43-44, emphasis his. Note: This class was part of the core Th.M. curriculum as taught by Dr. Ryrie at Dallas Theological Seminary, circa 1980.

[21] L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, p. 394.

[22] L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, p. 377. 

[23] L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 7, p. 265.

[24] Bill Fallon, "Repentance Word Study: Some Practical Considerations," emphasis his.