The Free Grace Study Bible: John 8:51

The Chi-Rho (XP):
An Ancient Christian Symbol

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 to heart My Word, he shall forever never behold death."

Bible Translation Notes

Grk. ἀμὴν ἀμὴν. Literally, Amen, Amen.

Grk. τηρήσῃ (verb: aorist tense, subjunctive mood, active voice), 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.) 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. 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 (specifically an idiom) 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".) I have chosen to translate the phrase in John 8:51 as "he shall forever never behold death" following Alfred Plummer's interpretation, when he says: "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, comment on Jn. 8:51. Note: The Roman numeral in the original has been updated to the current format.) Jesus' statement in Jn. 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.)

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: Secrets of the Script

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

The Chi-Rho (XP):
An Ancient Christian Symbol

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.

Free Grace Study Bible: Project Update #1

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's Misrepresentation of L. S. Chafer

I would also like to address the fact that Mr. Fallon completely misrepresents a statement by Lewis Sperry 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 regards 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.

A Free Grace Interpretation of Matthew 24:13

“But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.” Matthew 24:13

Does Matthew 24:13 teach the Calvinistic doctrine known as “The Perseverance of the Saints”? Let’s take a closer look! In regards to the meaning of Matthew 24:13, I’d like to begin with an excellent quote by Dr. Thomas Ice of the Pre-Trib Research Center. The following statements by Dr. Ice are from his article titled “An Interpretation of Matthew 24-25.” The footnote citations (numbers 9, 10, and 11) are from the original article. Commenting on Matthew 24:13, Dr. Ice writes the following:

The exact meaning and implications of “the one who endures to the end, he shall be saved,” is a hotly debated passage. Some use this passage to teach a Christian doctrine known as “the perseverance of the saints.” While others believe that it refers to a physical deliverance. I hold to the latter position, primarily because it is the only view that makes sense in this specific context. 

The first issue that must be dealt with in this matter is the meaning of the term “saved.” Because the word “saved” is used in the New Testament to refer to the time when one becomes a Christian (the moment of justification as in), many just plug that meaning into this passage. The leading Greek lexicon of our days says that the basic meaning of this word is “save, keep from harm, preserve, rescue.”⁹ [William F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 805.] This word can be used in relation to the doctrine of salvation (Matthew 1:21; Acts 16:31; 1 Corinthians 1:18; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 1:19; Titus 3:5; etc.), or it can simply refer to physical deliverance or rescue (Matthew 8:25; 14:30; 27:49; Acts 27:31; Hebrews 5:7; Jude 1:5; etc.). The exact nuance is determined by its context. “The problem begins with the superficial hermeneutic of giving ‘saved’ the same meaning in every context, which is not true of any word,” declares Glasscock. “Words have no specific meaning apart from context. Here, ‘saved’ (sōzō) means basically to ‘deliver’ or to ‘rescue’—from what and in what manner is dependent upon the context.”¹⁰ [Glasscock, Matthew, p. 466.]

Many commentaries on this passage fail to consider the contextual factors before they start sermonizing on endurance in the Christian life. They make this into a passage that teaches the Christian doctrine of endurance, even though it is not supported by the specific factors in the text.¹¹ [An example of one who turns this passage into a sermon on Christian endurance is found in John MacArthur, The New Testament Commentary: Matthew 24-28 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), pp. 28-29.] Truly, there is a Christian doctrine of endurance taught in the Epistles (Romans 12:12; 1 Corinthians 13:7; 2 Timothy 2:10, 12; Hebrews 12:3, 7; James 1:12; 5:11; 1 Peter 2:20). This doctrine teaches that one of the many character qualities that believer is to have is endurance. Why is this so? It is true because endurance under suffering produces character (Romans 5:3-4). Yet, none of those references to the Christian doctrine of endurance speak of “enduring to the end.” Instead, passages that speak of enduring to the end all occur within the same context—the tribulation (Matthew 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13; Luke 21:19; Revelation 13:10; 14:12).[1]

Contrary to what the Calvinists want us to believe, Matthew 24:13 does not support the doctrine of “The Perseverance of the Saints” and here’s why. First of all (as Dr. Ice pointed out), look at the context of Matthew chapter 24. It has to do with Israel (not the church) and Christ’s return to the earth after the Tribulation (see Matt. 24:20-21, 29-30). Matthew 24:1 says, “And Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when his disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him.” The Jewish temple was for the Jews under the Law, not for the church in the dispensation of grace! J. Vernon McGee has well said: “You see, back in the Old Testament [under the dispensation of Law], they brought a little lamb [to the temple]. And I’m sure you don’t take a little lamb to church to sacrifice. Today it would be sinful to do that [because it would be like trampling underfoot the Son of God and regarding as unclean His once-for-all sacrifice on the cross, Heb. 10:29]. But back then, before Christ came, it was required; the Law required it.”[2] In Matthew chapter 24, Jesus is answering the disciples’ question about the end of the age (v. 3), that is, the end of the Law age related to the nation of Israel. This has to do with the 70 “weeks” (or seventy units of seven years) spoken of through Daniel the prophet (Matt. 24:15; cf. Daniel 9:24-27): “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the wrongdoing, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for guilt, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place” (Dan. 9:24). Prophetically speaking, the first 69 “weeks” have already taken place; there is but one more “week” remaining: the coming seven-year Tribulation. This is the context of Matthew chapter 24. It is related to Israel's 70th “week,” the seven-year Tribulation period: “the time of Jacob's trouble” (Jer. 30:7). It is in this context that Jesus says in Matthew 24:13: “But the one who endures to the end, he shall be saved.” This statement is pertaining to those who are left behind after the Rapture of the church. Jesus is saying that those Israelites (notice the reference to the “Sabbath” in v. 20) who persevere to the end of the Great Tribulation will be saved, i.e. physically delivered. The word “saved” in verse 13 is in reference to physical deliverance. Jesus uses the word “saved” again in Matthew 24:22 in the same way, as meaning physical deliverance: “And unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect [i.e. Israel] those days shall be cut short.” John F. Walvoord, the second president of Dallas Theological Seminary, affirms this interpretation of Matthew 24:13. Walvoord writes: 

“those that endure to the end (Mt 24:13), that is, survive the tribulation and are still alive, will be saved, or delivered, by Christ at His second coming. This is not a reference to salvation from sin, but rather the deliverance of survivors at the end of the age as stated, for instance, in Romans 11:26, where the Deliverer will save the nation Israel from its persecutors. Many, of course, will not endure to the end, in the sense that they will be martyred, even though they are saved by faith in Christ, and the multitude of martyrs is mentioned in Revelation 7:9-17.”[3]

In conclusion, I agree with Dr. Charlie Bing of GraceLife Ministries when he says in regards to Matthew 24:13: “This passage should never be used to teach a doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints.”[4]

References:

[1] Thomas D. Ice, “An Interpretation of Matthew 24-25” (2009). Article Archives. 2.

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/pretrib_arch/2 (accessed 1-25-2026). 

[2] J. Vernon McGee, Romans: Chapter 1-8 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1991), p. 72, comment on Romans 3:25-26. Note: Reprint. Originally published: Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee. 1975.

[3] John F. Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), p. 184. See the comment on Matthew 24:13. https://walvoord.com/article/218 (accessed 1-25-2026).

[4] Charlie Bing, “The Salvation of Those Who Endure to the End in Matthew 24:13” (GraceNotes, Number 61). www.gracelife.org/resources/gracenotes/pdf/gracenotes61.pdf

Why MacArthur's Gospel Leaves Listeners "Empty and Dry"

The tragedy of John MacArthur's gospel is that it imports the Mosaic Law requirements for Israel into the church age of grace.[1] Notice what one listener of MacArthur's radio broadcast "Grace To You" (a misnomer in that it is actually "Law To You") said in this regard. The listener of MacArthur's broadcast shared the following comment:

"John MacArthur leaves me empty and dry when I hear him on the radio. The letter of the law kills but the spirit gives life [2 Cor. 3:6]. I do love to hear Vernon Magee [i.e. J. Vernon McGee], even though he is dead [cf. Heb. 11:4], he is a wonderful man even with that accent that I have learned to love."[2]

This "dryness" is the inevitable result of lingering at the foot of Mt. Sinai rather than at the foot of the Cross. This experience mirrors the scene in John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress where Christian is lured toward Mt. Sinai by Mr. Worldly Wiseman. As he draws near the mountain to seek relief from his burden through the Law, the hill begins to flash with fire and thunders so loudly that Christian falls down in fear, realizing that the Law cannot save but instead only condemns. 

D. L. Moody, the great 19th-century evangelist, encountered this same "Law-gospel" in his day and remarked:

"I pity those who are always hanging around Sinai, hoping to get life there. . . . [My friend] thinks I preach free grace too much; and I must confess I do like to speak of the free grace of God. This friend of mine feels as though he has a kind of mission to follow me; and whenever he gets a chance he comes in with the thunders of Sinai. . . . I have made inquiries, and I never heard of any one being converted under his preaching: the effects have always dwindled and died out. If the law is the door to heaven, there is no hope for any of us."[3]

The remedy for this spiritual dryness is not to strive harder under the Law, but to take a deeper drink of the finished work of Jesus Christ — where our standing is based on His performance, not ours.

References:

[1] Here I'm referring to the dispensation of the Mosaic Law in the Gospels (the Gospel of Matthew in particular that MacArthur especially draws upon), not discipleship per se. MacArthur fails to "rightly divide" the Word (2 Tim. 2:15) by taking the strict requirements of the Mosaic Law — which Jesus preached in Matthew to bring His Jewish listeners to the end of themselves — and turning them into a checklist for salvation in this church age of grace.

[2] "Ray Comfort/John MacArthur teaches a false gospel" (ChristianChat.com). See the comment by Jezreel (#3), dated September 19, 2009. https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/ray-comfort-john-macarthur-teaches-a-false-gospel.6432/ (accessed 1-17-2026). The link to the archived page is: https://archive.ph/oYN7V (archive.today webpage capture).

[3] D. L. Moody, Sovereign Grace (Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1891), pp. 48-49, brackets and ellipsis added.

D. L. Moody on Christians "Living in Doubting Castle"

"There is another thought I want to bring out, and that is, it is the privilege of every child of God in this vast assembly to know that their names are written in the Book of Life, and believe we can have that assurance that our names have gone on before us, and are registered in heaven. Christ sent out His disciples, seventy of them, and told them to go into the towns and villages, and preach the kingdom of God, and tell the glad tidings to the inhabitants; and when these men came back they had had wonderful success. Why, they said that the very devils were subject to them. All they had to do was to command the devils to leave the men, and the devils fled before them. They were all elated with their wonderful success; revivals had followed everywhere they had been; they were revival preachers; they were evangelists going into the towns and preaching. I have not any doubt but that there was a good deal of prejudice against them, but they went on preaching the glad tidings, and when they came back, Christ says, 'Well now, do not rejoice at that; I will tell you what to rejoice over. Rejoice that your names are written in heaven.' And I would like to ask every one in this audience to-night this question, Is your name there? Can you rejoice to-night that your name is written in heaven, that your name is in the Book of Life? Says Christ to His disciples, 'Rejoice that your names are written in heaven.'

[...]

Yes, every one whose names are written in the Book of Life shall not perish, but shall be saved....Oh, it is the privilege of every child of God to have his name there, and to know that it is there. I find so many people

LIVING IN DOUBTING CASTLE.

Why, it is salvation by doubts nowadays instead of by faith; there are so few that dare to say, 'I know that my Redeemer liveth; I know in whom I have believed.' We find most Christians nowadays shivering and trembling from head to foot, they do not know whether they are saved or not. Yes, Christ never would have told His disciples to have rejoiced unless they had known that their names were there."

____

Source: D. L. Moody, The London Discourses of Mr. D. L. Moody (London: 1875), pp. 121-123.

Addressing Bob Wilkin's "Gospel of John" Objection

I want to point out the flawed methodology of Bob Wilkin's new view of repentance (as supposedly "harmony with God"), specifically when he says the following: "Since John's Gospel has as its purpose leading unbelievers to faith in Christ and everlasting life (John 20:31), it is highly unlikely that John would leave out the words repent and repentance and yet include the concept if repentance were a condition of everlasting life. He'd want to be as clear as possible. Besides, John used those words a dozen times in Revelation, but not at all in his Gospel. As Hodges says, that is an argument about silence, not an argument from silence. See Zane Hodges, Harmony with God (Dallas, TX: Redencion Viva, 2001), 5-11 (see also 13-21)."¹ 

Wilkin's statement is flawed because obviously Hodges is citing John's silence on the word repentance as evidence for his new "harmony with God" view (and thereby concluding that even the concept of repentance is absent from John's Gospel), which is the same as an argument from silence. So Hodges' and Wilkin's statements that their view is not based on an argument from silence but rather what they call an "argument about silence" are merely equivocation. However they phrase it, it's the same idea: Hodges is building his case on the absence of evidence and concluding that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Furthermore, in regards to Wilkin's statement that John uses the word "repentance" in Revelation but not in his Gospel, other theological terms are entirely absent in John's Gospel but are found in Revelation: for example, the word "gospel" occurs in Rev. 14:6 but is absent in John; the word "church" occurs in Rev. 1:4, 1:11, 1:20; 2:1, 2:7, 2:8, 2:11 (etc.) but is absent in John, and the word "justified" (as found in the KJV/TR tradition) occurs in Rev. 22:11 but is absent in John. Other theological terms that are absent from both John and Revelation are the words "baptism" (the noun is absent in both John and Revelation, although the verb is present in John), "justification," and "Christian". But hopefully no one will say that those concepts are missing! Thus Wilkin's argument about the word "repentance" occurring "a dozen times in Revelation, but not at all in [John's] Gospel" is entirely beside the point and does not prove that the concept is absent from John's Gospel. The word "gospel" doesn't even occur in John's Gospel (!), but is found in Revelation. But who would say that the concept is absent from John's Gospel? Indeed, the very reason that John's Gospel is called a "Gospel" is precisely because the concept of "gospel" is contained probably on every page in the book, even though the word itself is never used.²

Furthermore, Wilkin fails to account for the fact that John's vocabulary for "believing" often carries the conceptual weight of "turning" (e.g., John 12:40 uses strephō, "to turn"; cf. Acts 26:20; 1 Thess. 1:9), suggesting that for John, the response of faith is inherently a repentant response, even if he prefers different terminology. This does not import works, commitment, or moral reform into faith; it simply recognizes that believing in Christ necessarily entails abandoning prior unbelief, precisely what metanoia denotes at the conceptual level. Wilkin's statement that "John's Gospel has as its purpose leading unbelievers to faith in Christ" conveys the same idea of a "change of mind," which is thus inherent in saving faith. Wilkin's statement that John's purpose is leading people to "faith" implicitly requires a metanoia — a change of mind — regarding one's previous unbelief. Therefore, Wilkin is essentially arguing that the concept of repentance (as a change of mind) is absent while simultaneously acknowledging a purpose that makes the concept a logical necessity.

When put to the test, the "silence" of John's Gospel does not support Wilkin's theory; rather, it is the theory itself that shatters when struck by the consistent testimony of Scripture.

ENDNOTES:

¹ Bob Wilkin, "Is the Concept of Repentance Found in John’s Gospel, and if so, What Difference Does It Make?," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Spring 2019), p. 25, endnote 3.

² It should be noted that even the title "The Gospel of John" was added later by scribes who recognized — based on the content alone — that the book was indeed a "Gospel." They did not require the literal word euangelion to be present in the text to identify the foundational concept. This exposes the inconsistency in Wilkin's methodology: he demands that the literal word "repentance" be present before admitting the concept exists in John's Gospel, yet he accepts the title "Gospel" for a book that never once uses that specific word in its text.

The Hammer and the Clay: Why Hodges' View of Repentance Shatters Under Scrutiny

"Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?"  Jeremiah 23:29, KJV.

The following is a comment that I recently shared regarding the "ivory tower" silence we see from the non-traditional Free Grace camp when it comes to discussing their "harmony with God" view of repentance, with those who would challenge it from the Bible:

"...we will probably hear crickets from the non-traditional Free Gracers who teach the view that I'm critiquing. Despite whatever excuse they give, the lack of engagement suggests that their view cannot stand up to the scrutiny of open dialog and debate from a biblical perspective! Hence their complete and total silence on the matter other than to discuss it within the safe confines of their own ivory towers, where Zane Hodges ideologues offer no challenge to their weak and already disproven arguments. 

So much for 'iron sharpening iron' (Prov. 27:17) — but that assumes their view is 'iron,' which it is not. Their non-traditional view of repentance as supposedly 'harmony with God' is brittle clay that shatters when hit by the hammer of 'Thus saith the Lord'! As the Bible says, 'Is not my Word like fire, saith the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?' (Jer. 23:29)."

*  *  *

Addendum: Addressing Bob Wilkin's "Gospel of John" Objection

I also want to point out the flawed methodology of Bob Wilkin's new view of repentance (as supposedly "harmony with God"), specifically when he says the following: "Since John's Gospel has as its purpose leading unbelievers to faith in Christ and everlasting life (John 20:31), it is highly unlikely that John would leave out the words repent and repentance and yet include the concept if repentance were a condition of everlasting life. He'd want to be as clear as possible. Besides, John used those words a dozen times in Revelation, but not at all in his Gospel. As Hodges says, that is an argument about silence, not an argument from silence. See Zane Hodges, Harmony with God (Dallas, TX: Redencion Viva, 2001), 5-11 (see also 13-21)."¹ 

Wilkin's statement is flawed because obviously Hodges is citing John's silence on the word repentance as evidence for his new "harmony with God" view (and thereby concluding that even the concept of repentance is absent from John's Gospel), which is the same as an argument from silence. So Hodges' and Wilkin's statements that their view is not based on an argument from silence but rather what they call an "argument about silence" are merely equivocation. However they phrase it, it's the same idea: Hodges is building his case on the absence of evidence and concluding that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Furthermore, in regards to Wilkin's statement that John uses the word "repentance" in Revelation but not in his Gospel, other theological terms are entirely absent in John's Gospel but are found in Revelation: for example, the word "gospel" occurs in Rev. 14:6 but is absent in John; the word "church" occurs in Rev. 1:4, 1:11, 1:20; 2:1, 2:7, 2:8, 2:11 (etc.) but is absent in John, and the word "justified" (as found in the KJV/TR tradition) occurs in Rev. 22:11 but is absent in John. Other theological terms that are absent from both John and Revelation are the words "baptism" (the noun is absent in both John and Revelation, although the verb is present in John), "justification," and "Christian". But hopefully no one will say that those concepts are missing! Thus Wilkin's argument about the word "repentance" occurring "a dozen times in Revelation, but not at all in [John's] Gospel" is entirely beside the point and does not prove that the concept is absent from John's Gospel. The word "gospel" doesn't even occur in John's Gospel (!), but is found in Revelation. But who would say that the concept is absent from John's Gospel? Indeed, the very reason that John's Gospel is called a "Gospel" is precisely because the concept of "gospel" is contained probably on every page in the book, even though the word itself is never used.²

Furthermore, Wilkin fails to account for the fact that John's vocabulary for "believing" often carries the conceptual weight of "turning" (e.g., John 12:40 uses strephō, "to turn"; cf. Acts 26:20; 1 Thess. 1:9), suggesting that for John, the response of faith is inherently a repentant response, even if he prefers different terminology. This does not import works, commitment, or moral reform into faith; it simply recognizes that believing in Christ necessarily entails abandoning prior unbelief, precisely what metanoia denotes at the conceptual level. Wilkin's statement that "John's Gospel has as its purpose leading unbelievers to faith in Christ" conveys the same idea of a "change of mind," which is thus inherent in saving faith. Wilkin's statement that John's purpose is leading people to "faith" implicitly requires a metanoia — a change of mind — regarding one's previous unbelief. Therefore, Wilkin is essentially arguing that the concept of repentance (as a change of mind) is absent while simultaneously acknowledging a purpose that makes the concept a logical necessity.

When put to the test, the "silence" of John's Gospel does not support Wilkin's theory; rather, it is the theory itself that shatters when struck by the consistent testimony of Scripture.

ENDNOTES:

¹ Bob Wilkin, "Is the Concept of Repentance Found in John’s Gospel, and if so, What Difference Does It Make?," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society (Spring 2019), p. 25, endnote 3.

² It should be noted that even the title "The Gospel of John" was added later by scribes who recognized — based on the content alone — that the book was indeed a "Gospel." They did not require the literal word euangelion to be present in the text to identify the foundational concept. This exposes the inconsistency in Wilkin's methodology: he demands that the literal word "repentance" be present before admitting the concept exists in John's Gospel, yet he accepts the title "Gospel" for a book that never once uses that specific word in its text.

A Biblical Defense of Christmas