My Dialogue with Antonio da Rosa on 1 John 5:1

by Jonathan Perreault

Introduction: The Content of Saving Faith

What is the absolute "lowest common denominator" required for a person to be born again? Does a person simply need to believe that someone named "Jesus" promises "eternal life," or does saving faith inherently require an understanding of Christ's substitutionary death on the cross and His resurrection?

In October 2007, I engaged in a week-long blog dialogue with Antonio da Rosa regarding 1 John 5:1: "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." Antonio, representing the perspective popularized by Zane Hodges, argued that this verse is a strict logical equation—asserting that simple belief in Jesus's identity as the Christ is sufficient for eternal life, apart from any other theological considerations.

Representing the traditional Free Grace position, I approached the text from a different angle. By digging into the original Greek syntax—specifically the relationship between the present participle ("believing") and the perfect tense verb ("has been born")—I argue that John is providing a description of those who are already regenerated, rather than a prescription for how the lost receive eternal life.

What follows is an edited transcript of our back-and-forth. It serves as a case study in how minor grammatical details can completely reshape our understanding of gospel clarity, biblical context, and the structure of New Testament epistles.

To summarize my thesis and understanding of 1 John 5:1, it is simply this: 1 John 5:1 is a summary confession of faith for the believer rather than the specific content of saving faith required for the unbeliever.

About This Transcript:

The following dialogue occurred between October 2–8, 2007, and is excerpted from the comments on Antonio's original Free Grace Theology blog post, "'Whoever [simply] believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God' (1 John 5:1). Do you believe this?" (October 1, 2007).

To highlight our specific back-and-forth, I have removed all other comments from the original thread except for those between Antonio and myself. I have also done some light editing mainly to correct spelling errors and typos, but otherwise, the comments are copied and pasted directly as they were originally written.

Original Source Links

• Link to Antonio’s Blog Post: "'Whoever [simply] believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God' (1 John 5:1). Do you believe this?" (Hyperlink)
• Link to the Full Discussion: Original Comment Thread Archive (Hyperlink)

Dialogue Transcript: October 2-8, 2007

Jonathan

Hi Antonio,

In context, do you understand 1 John 5:1a to be a description or a prescription? And why?

October 02, 2007 5:33 PM

Antonio

If you will indulge me, I would like to ask you a question first.

What difference would it make?

John's statement is very emphatic:

"Whoever [there are no exceptions!] believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God."

So, no matter what else can be stated about a person, if he or she simply believes that Jesus is the Christ (and obviously in the soteric sense that John has imported into this title) they are among the redeemed, regardless of any other consideration.

Thanks for your visit,

Antonio

October 02, 2007 5:57 PM

Antonio

Let me ask you another question, JP:

Did you read the total of my appended article? If not, could I persuade you to finish reading it before we continue a dialogue?

Thanks, man!

Your forever fg brother,

Antonio

October 02, 2007 5:58 PM

Jonathan

Hi Antonio,

In answer to your questions, the difference is between a correct or incorrect application. A correct application of a Scripture must be based on the correct interpretation of that Scripture.

And yes, I did read your expanded and edited version of your post.

Talk to you later!

October 03, 2007 2:33 PM

Antonio

Let me ask you a question, what is wrong with this:

John's statement is very emphatic:

"Whoever [there are no exceptions!] believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God."

So, no matter what else can be stated about a person, if he or she simply believes that Jesus is the Christ (and obviously in the soteric sense that John has imported into this title) they are among the redeemed, regardless of any other consideration.

Now unless you want to argue that regeneration precedes faith, for John, the consideration if one is born again or not is determined by if this individual believes that Jesus is the Christ.

We know that 1 John 5:1 does not speak of regeneration preceding faith, for John 20:31 states that as a result of believing that Jesus is the Christ one obtains life (in other words, born of God) ("that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ... and believing, have life in His name").

I am desiring to discuss my arguments of this opening post. If you have problems with it, please share them that we may discuss them.

In 1 John 5:1, John has described for us what the lowest common denominator is for considering one born again. As long as anyone, without exception, believes that Jesus is the Christ (apart from any other consideration) he is born of God. Therefore, fundamentally, whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.

Antonio

October 03, 2007 3:03 PM

Jonathan

Hi Antonio,

The following is my understanding of 1 John 5:1. Also let me add that I believe the context of 1 John concerns believers and addresses fellowship with God and with each other.

"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him" (1 John 5:1, NKJV).

Since a proper application must be based on the proper interpretation, let’s briefly try to understand this verse by properly understanding two key terms.

First, let’s look at the word "believes" (NKJV). In Greek, this word is a present tense, active voice, participle. Concerning the Greek participle, Mounce writes, "The present participle is built on the present tense stem of the verb. . . . It describes a continuous action . . . [an] 'on-going' nuance" (Basics of Biblical Greek, p. 246). For this reason, D. Edmond Hiebert (Bibliotheca Sacra, April 1990, p. 217, An Expositional Study of 1 John, Part 9: An Exposition of 1 John 5:1-12) translates this Greek participle as "believing".

Second, let's look at the phrase "is born" (NKJV). In Greek, this verb is in the perfect tense, passive voice, and indicative mood. Mounce writes that the Greek perfect tense "describes an action that was brought to completion [in the past] and whose effects are felt in the present" (Basics of Biblical Greek, p. 225). Similarly, Daniel Wallace writes, "The force of the perfect tense is simply that it describes an even that, completed in the past (we are speaking of the perfect indicative here), has results existing in the present time (i.e. in relation to the time of the speaker)" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 573). For these reasons Hiebert translates this phrase as "out of God has been born". (Ibid.) Similarly, the NET Bible renders it as "has been fathered by God", and the Jerusalem Bible reads, "has been begotten by God".

Now let's put it all together. The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by Alfred Marshall literally translates 1 John 5:1 as follows: "Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ of God has been begotten, and everyone loving the [one] begetting loves the [one] having been begotten of him."

So what does this mean? A. T. Robertson aptly writes, "The Divine Begetting is the antecedent, not the consequent of the believing". (Word Pictures in the New Testament.) Similarly, Dr. Norman Geisler says, "First of all, this text says nothing about how one becomes born of God." (Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, p. 484.)

I believe Greg Schliesmann sums it up well when he says that 1 John 5:1 is a summary DESCRIPTION, not a detailed PRESCRIPTION.

We also need to remember that, as someone has said, "No man is an island, but no Scripture is either."

October 04, 2007 2:44 PM

Antonio

Hey John,

thanks for the reply.

Let me ask you a few questions:

1) Do you believe that eternal life is the result of a simple act of faith (punctilliar) or the result of a linear, continuous faith?

I ask, because your description of the present, active participle is a very general, basic, first year Greek statement that can be very misleading.

Dan Wallace has this to say about your description of the present participle, "... but the present participle, by itself, can hardly be forced into this mold," and states that "caution must be exercised" when considering the present participle. (Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, p. 616.)

When all the evidence is considered concerning John's use of the present, active participle, "pisteuwn", it can be clearly shown that for John, this is a general, gnomic usage, simply denoting "whoever believes". This is how John uses this participle (which he uses 43 times).

The following (not exhaustive) is a list of how 15 translation committees and/or translators rendered the present participle in 1 John 5:1

NIV: Everyone who believes

NKJV: Whoever believes

NASB: Whoever believes

ASV: Whosoever believeth

KJV: Whosoever believeth

HCSB: Everyone who believes

RSV: Everyone who believes

NRSV: Everyone who believes

Darby Translation: Everyone that believes

Weymouth: Every one who believes

21st Century KJ : Whosoever believeth

Wycliffe: Each man that believeth

ESV: Everyone who believes

NASBE: Whoever believes

NJB: Whoever believes

It seems to me that they understand this precisely the way that I do, generally, denoting simply "whoever believes" (NKJV).

Let's get down to the nitty gritty.

I agree that the verse is describing, for John, what is the fundamental concern on how a Christian is identified, and that it is not prescriptive.

Let me ask you the next question. Can you answer affirmatively, as John has in 1 John 5:1... can you answer "yes" to this question:

Do you believe that WHOEVER believes that Jesus is the Christ can accurately be described as having been born of God (note the perfect tense of my question)?

The epistle writer John answers an emphatic, "yes!".

Let us test John's emphatic statement. It is, in fact, an assertion. He is asserting a truism about the one who believes that Jesus is the Christ.

Let us have an interview with John:

John, would you consider someone who had black skin and believes that Jesus is the Christ to be born again (remember, the perfect tense is an action in the past that has present results)?

"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God!"

John, would you consider someone who didn't understand or believe that Jesus would die on the cross or that He rose from the dead (as Peter did) yet believes that Jesus is the Christ to be born again?

"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God!"

John, would you consider someone who didn't understand or believe that Jesus was equal with the Father (as all the disciples did when they were first born again) yet believes that Jesus is the Christ to be born again?

"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God!"

John, would you consider someone who was ignorant of much theological doctrine yet sincerely believes that Jesus of Nazareth, who raised Lazarus from the dead, and walked on water, and healed the sick, and gave sight to the blind, and made the lame whole, and cleansed the leper, is the Christ to be born again?

"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God!"

JP,

Fundamentally, for John, the Christian is sufficiently and accurately identified as whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ.

So, according to this simple statement, regardless of what can be said about a person, if he believes that Jesus is the Christ, he is a born again Christian.

And why would we think otherwise?

Jesus prescribed how men and women are to be born again (in other words receive life): "believe that Jesus is the Christ... and believing you might have life in His name" (John 20:31)

Antonio

October 04, 2007 5:32 PM 

Jonathan

Antonio,

I want to comment on your statement, "There is not one scripture in the whole of the bible which states that one must believe that Jesus Christ died substitutionally on a cross for the sins of the world in order to receive eternal life, eternal salvation, or justification." If by "one Scripture" you mean one Bible verse, I would say that the Greek text has no verse divisions. Furthermore, as I stated above, we need to remember that "no man is an island, but no Scripture is either". (I am quoting a prominent Free Grace scholar from a personal correspondence.) And so with these things in mind, I would answer your statement by pointing simply to the book of Acts. In this book alone there are many Scriptures which state that one must believe that Jesus Christ died substitutionally on a cross for the sins of the world in order to receive eternal life, eternal salvation, or justification. See, for example: Acts 2:14-38, 3:12-26,4:8-12, 5:28-31, 8:30-35, 9:15 cf. 20:24, 10:34-43, 13:23-39, etc. (I am not even half-way through Acts but I will stop.) Notice in the last passage I cited from Acts 13, we see an example of Paul's witnessing technique. He has no aversion to quoting from different Scriptures, yet you do. This I do not understand. While the apostle does encapsulate the saving message in Acts 16:31 [or at least the one condition of it], Paul goes on to fill in the details in the very next verse.

October 04, 2007 5:37 PM

Jonathan

Hi Antonio,

Yes, I believe a person becomes born again at a point in time. But I don’t believe this is what the apostle is referring to in 1 John 5:1 (see my comments above regarding this). Rather, I believe John is speaking of characteristics that can only be true (but are not necessarily always true) of those who already have been born again (in the past): “Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ of God has been begotten, and everyone loving . . .” (1 Jn. 5:1a, Marshall, Interlinear Greek-English New Testament). So, as a Christian, who should I consider my brother (1 Jn. 4:21)? Fundamentally, everyone who confesses that they believe that Jesus is the Christ (1 Jn. 5:1, cf. 1 Jn. 4:15). I see this as the SUMMARY CONFESSION OF FAITH of a believer, not the SPECIFIC CONTENT OF FAITH for the unbeliever.

October 05, 2007 2:44 PM

Antonio

JP,

Thanks again for your comments. I believe that it is a good discussion.

I made a blanket assertion: there is not one scriptural passage that enjoins men to believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross, substitutionally, for sins, that has an explicitly stated result of eternal salvation, justification, or eternal life. Not one. And I stand by that assertion. [Editor's note: But see Jn. 3:14-16; Acts 13:26-41; 1 Cor. 1:17-21, 4:15, 15:1-3, etc.]

You have brought forth some verses for me to consider. So I will.

Acts 2:14-38

This is Peter's famous sermon on that great birthday of the church. I can see that Peter mentions Jesus' miracles, wonders, and signs, which attest to Jesus' messiahship (Acts 2:22). I also see that Peter mention's Christ's death and resurrection. When I do evangelism, I do the same thing. I present Christ’s miracles and wonders. And I present His death and resurrection. Likewise, like Peter, I point to the fact that Jesus is the Christ. For Peter, this is his main and ending point:

Acts 2:36

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." I can see myself stating something similar, "In light of my preceding testimony, let all here in the village of Keikhu in India, know assuredly, that God has made this Jesus, who did the miracles, who died on the cross and rose again, both Lord and Christ. And all who simply believe that Jesus is the Christ will have eternal life in His name."

Nowhere in the text are we met in this text with an explicit command, enjoining the Israelites to believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose again, for the express purpose of receiving eternal life. You are reading this into the text, JP. It is not there! Show me where! [Editor's note: See Acts 2:38, "Repent...for the forgiveness of your sins," etc.] Are we met with, "Men and brethren, believe that this Jesus who I preached to you died on the cross for your sins, and as a result, you will receive everlasting life, justification, and eternal salvation!"? Of course not. [Editor's note: Christ's substitutionary death on the cross is clearly in the immediate context! See Acts 2:23; cf. Isa. 53:5-6.]

What we are met with is Peter leading people to the knowledge that Jesus is the Christ! He is using the same signs that John did to show that Jesus is the Christ. He is using that information to persuade his crowd to believe in Jesus. He is not providing his commentary as a checklist of doctrines that one must consciously assent to as a necessary theological requirement in ADDITION to believing that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ (which is the only theological requirement and condition of saving faith).

Furthermore, it is interesting to note, that there is not even a shred of speech concerning Christ's death as a substitution for the sins of Israel. [Editor's note: But see Acts 2:23; cf. Isa. 53:5-6.] This is one of Stegall's 5 conditions!

It is a logical fallacy to suppose that just because Peter mention’s Christ’s death and resurrection that he deems them necessary content to saving faith. [Editor's note: Antonio's statement here is a straw man argument because no one is saying that. Obviously Christ's death and resurrection are part of the gospel, and that is why those facts are necessary to believe to be saved. See 1 Cor. 15:1ff.] As we have mentioned in the text of this post, the Christ was to be King of Israel. Peter also mentions this in the text of his sermon here in 2:30 (see also 2:34-36). Why aren't you demanding the lost to assent to this also as a necessary, theological requirement for eternal salvation? [Editor's note: Because that is not part of the gospel. See 1 Cor. 15:1ff.] Peter, like his Apostolic brother John, speaks of Jesus’ miracles, signs, and wonders. Why aren’t you demanding the lost to assent to this also as a necessary, theological requirement for eternal salvation? [Editor's note: Because those things are not part of the gospel. See 1 Cor. 15:1ff.] Again, your reasoning is faulty. [Editor's note: Antonio's statement here is another straw man argument because traditional Free Grace folks don't use the reasoning that Antonio is suggesting.] Just because Peter mentions it, doesn’t make it a requirement for saving faith. [Editor's note: Traditional Free Grace folks agree! Antonio's statement here is a huge straw man argument!]

In such a case as this, we must employ the hermeneutical principle of the law of affirmation, which states that we may only affirm identity and equality if such is stated. Nowhere in the Bible is it affirmed that believing that Jesus died on the cross substitutionally for sins is either saving faith, or one of many components of saving faith. [Editor's note: That is false. See Acts 2:23; cf. Isa. 53:5-6; 1 Cor. 1:17-21, 4:15, 15:1ff.] This is true of this passage as well.

Acts 3:12-26

This is, of course, Peter's second sermon in the book of Acts, at the occasion of healing a lame man in Solomon's Portico. Peter is taking the usual tact. He is explaining things about Jesus, that prove who He is, and then enjoining men to believe in Him. I do the same thing. I tell men and women about Jesus of Nazareth. I lift Jesus up in such a way that I show Him to be able, qualified, and authorized to impart eternal life to all who simply believe in His name for it. Peter here does the same thing. He speaks about Jesus, proving by what He did that He is the Christ, and then speaks about faith in Him. It is interesting, as well, that when Peter heals the lame man, he says, “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk” (Acts 3:6). It is by belief in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth that one is eternally secure.

Peter adds something else here. He refers to Jesus as the prophet whom Moses wrote about (3:22-23). The Christ was to be a prophet, indeed! Jesus fulfilled this role, and so therefore is the Christ. And when anyone understands to be true that Jesus is the Christ, he is born again. Peter mentions that Jesus is the prophet that Moses spoke about! Why aren’t you demanding the lost to assent to this also as a necessary, theological requirement for eternal salvation? [Editor's note: Because it is not part of the gospel, and it is by believing the gospel that a person is saved. See 1 Cor. 1:17-21.] Just because Peter gives prominence to something in his sermons, doesn’t make it required, theological necessity for saving faith. [Editor's note: Another straw man argument! No one is saying that "just because Peter gives prominence to something in his sermons" it is therefore a "required, theological necessity for saving faith."] And again, in this passage, nowhere are we met with a command enjoining the lost to believe that Jesus died on the cross substitutionally for sins for the express purpose of receiving eternal life. You have read this into the text. [Editor's note: That is false. See Acts 3:18; cf. Isa. 53:5-6, particularly when it says: "But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities."]

This is sufficient. I have grown weary making these arguments. Having read each scripture that you have referenced, there is not one single passage that enjoins the lost to believe in the cross of Christ for sins as a requirement for saving faith. Not one. My challenge is to prove me wrong. Show me any passage that conditions everlasting life, eternal salvation, or justification on believing that Jesus died a substitutionary death on the cross. [Editor's note: See 1 Cor. 1:17-21, 4:15, 15:1ff; Eph. 1:13-14; 2 Thess. 1:8-9.]

I have read Greg S.'s stuff on Lou's blog. There are a lot of words! But his arguments are grasping at air. They are nothing but allusion, intimation, and conjecture. We have shown his faulty arguments both in the opening post, and in this comment thread. You wrote this in your comment:

"Notice in the last passage I cited from Acts 13, we see an example of Paul's witnessing technique. He has no aversion to quoting from different Scriptures, yet you do. This I do not understand."

I just read the entire passage. I approve of Paul’s witnessing technique here. What would ever give you the impression that I did not? I have no aversion to quoting from different Scriptures. As a matter of fact, I use all kinds of Scriptures to show that the Jesus born of Mary and legally the son of Joseph is indeed the promised Christ. You seem to be having more misconceptions about my position.

In closing, for Peter, Paul, and John, anyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God, and there are no exceptions. As for your last comment on 1 John 5:1, I suggest that, if you haven’t already, a class on logic. [Editor's note: But notice that the fatal flaw in Antonio's logic is that he is only taking into consideration the English syntax of 1 John 5:1 and completely ignoring the Greek perfect tense of the word gegennētai meaning "has been born," which disproves his entire argument.] What John has done for us is given us a solid and exceptionless assertion. He has stated that whoever, everyone, anyone, anywhere, at any time, who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a Christian. This is airtight. John considers ANYONE who believes that Jesus is the Christ to be a born again Christian. This is his fundamental definition of a Christian. [Editor's note: It's not a definition of a Christian, rather, it's a description of a Christian. That's a big difference! If what Antonio is saying is true, then every characteristic of a Christian becomes a requirement for salvation, which of course is absurd.]

Let us ask John another question:

John, who are our Christian brothers?

"Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ."

So you are telling me that if someone believes that Jesus is the Christ that this person is indeed a born again Christian? "Yes!"

John's statement in 1 John 5:1 is clear and unambiguous. It is subject to the rules and laws of logic. There are no qualifiers or modifiers to this statement. It is an ABSOLUTE statement of truth.

And what is that absolute statement of truth, JP?

That no matter who you are, what you do, or any other consideration about you, if you simply believe that Jesus is the Christ, you are to be regarded as a born again Christian. [Editor's note: Notice here that Antonio seems to admit that 1 John 5:1 is not talking about how to be saved, but rather how to recognize those who are saved! And that is the whole point.]

As a statement of truth, it cannot be falsified. In other words, providing the premise is true, the conclusion is sure, no matter what. Therefore, if we were to add anything to the premise, the conclusion would be sure. Only if we were to subtract from the premise would the conclusion be negated.

Providing that someone believes that Jesus is the Christ, the certain conclusion is that this person is indeed a born again Christian.

Add to the premise "whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ" ANYTHING ELSE, it DOESN'T MATTER WHAT, providing the premise is true, the conclusion is sure. This can be amply demonstrated through logical proofing. If someone, anyone, believes that Jesus is the Christ he is a born again Christian. [Editor's note: Notice here that Antonio is not quoting the rest of the sentence from 1 John 5:1, and when he does quote it he twists the meaning of the English grammar instead of going back to the Greek text. The reason why Antonio doesn't go back to the Greek text of 1 John 5:1 is because it disproves his entire argument. In light of the Greek grammar of 1 John 5:1, if someone believes that Jesus is the Christ, he has been born again at some time in the past and the results are ongoing into the present. This is the meaning of the Greek word gegennētai in 1 John 5:1, which literally means "has been born".]

And again, I leave with:

Why would we think anything otherwise?

The same author has prescribed for us how we are to receive eternal life, being born again:

"…believe that Jesus is the Christ… that believing you may have life in His name" (John 20:31).

October 05, 2007 7:21 PM

Jonathan

Hi Antonio,

I'd like to continue our discussion on 1 John 5:1a, and later I'll comment again on Acts.

"Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ of God has been begotten, and everyone loving the [one] begetting loves the [one] having been begotten of him." (1 John 5:1, Marshall, Interlinear Greek-English New Testament.)

1 John 5:1a is not a COMMANDING REQUIREMENT FOR the new birth, but a CHARACTERISTIC RESULT OF the new birth. (Please reference the Greek exegesis by noted scholars I have set forth above.)

In 1 John, what does the apostle John say are three CHARACTERISTIC (but not automatic) RESULTS OF the new birth?

1) BELIEVING (1 Jn. 5:1a, cf. Rom. 1:17, 2 Cor. 5:7, Gal. 2:20, Col. 2:6, 1 Tim. 1:19-20 and 1 Cor. 5:5, 2 Tim. 2:13, Heb. 3:12, 1 Pt. 1:8 – Notice the believing and loving characteristics of the Christians to whom Peter writes.)

2) CONFESSING BELIEF (1 Jn. 4:14-15, 21-5:1a, cf. Jn. 12:32)

3) LOVING (1 Jn. 4:7, cf. Rev. 2:4)

October 07, 2007 2:44 PM

Jonathan

Hey Antonio,

I finally was able to read your comments regarding the Bible verses I cited in Acts.

Right now I would like to simply speak regarding a quote of mine you disagreed with in which I said,

"Notice in the last passage I cited from Acts 13, we see an example of Paul's witnessing technique. He has no aversion to quoting from different Scriptures, yet you do. This I do not understand."

To this you responded,

"I just read the entire passage [in Acts 13]. I approve of Paul's witnessing technique here. What would ever give you the impression that I did not? I have no aversion to quoting from different Scriptures. As a matter of fact, I use all kinds of Scriptures to show that the Jesus born of Mary and legally the son of Joseph is indeed the promised Christ. You seem to be having more misconceptions about my position."

What gave me the impression that you have an aversion to quoting from different Scriptures in your witnessing technique is when you stated in this post on 1 John:

"If a lost man were to ask them [TFG] where in the Bible does it give these conditions for eternal salvation, they [TFG] could not turn to any single passage to show them. They would need to hop around the Bible, stringing a multitude of passages together. In the end, not a single passage they would turn to clearly states that the conditions that the TFG offer for the reception of eternal life do indeed appropriate salvation. This, itself, is a most major problem."

I seem to remember having read other comments of yours in which you state similar sentiments.

October 08, 2007 2:53 PM

Jonathan

Brother Antonio,

Once again, we have to understand Acts 2 in context, because a text without a context is a pretext!

Peter is preaching to a JEWISH audience. It has been said that Judaism was a bloody religion – and it was! For the sins of the people there were yearly sacrifices, daily sacrifices, sin offerings – ex abuntanti – in abundance! If any culture was familiar with substitutionary sacrifices, it was Israel! For according to the Law: "WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO REMISSION OF SIN" (cf. Heb. 9:22). Furthermore, in Acts 2, Peter was preaching to the very Jews who had crucified Christ (Acts 2:22-23, 36)! These were the Jews who had heard John the Baptist proclaim of Jesus: "BEHOLD! THE LAMB OF GOD WHO TAKES AWAY THE SINS OF THE WORLD" (Jn. 1:29b)! These were the Jews who had heard Jesus say, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd GIVES HIS LIFE FOR THE SHEEP. . . . As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I LAY DOWN MY LIFE FOR THE SHEEP. . . . Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father" (Jn. 10:11, 15, 17-18). These Jews didn't have to be reminded of what Jesus did and said, they knew full well - and that's why they crucified Him! Therefore Peter simply emphasizes the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:22-36), and tells Israel to "REPENT!" (change their minds from unbelief to belief concerning this Man they had crucified) "FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS" (Acts 2:38) – emphasizing again the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God! [Editor's note: Furthermore, lest anyone think Peter only included the cross because of a Jewish audience, when he later preaches to the Gentile household of Cornelius in Acts 10, he explicitly conditions salvation on this same message, concluding in Acts 10:43: "To Him all the prophets bear witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."]

I will address the second passage in Acts that you responded to the next time I comment.

October 08, 2007 7:05 PM

Conclusion: Why Grammar and Context Matter for the Gospel

Looking back at this dialogue, the core issue remains as vital today as it was then. It shows that theological debates are rarely just about individual words; they are about how we fit those words into the grander tapestry of Scripture.

When we isolate a verse like 1 John 5:1 from its structural Greek grammar and its broader New Testament context, we risk turning a beautiful description of Christian fellowship into a checklist that leaves out the very heart of the gospel—the cross and the resurrection. By understanding that John is describing the ongoing confession of someone who has already been born of God, we protect the clarity of the saving message while remaining faithful to the text.

But a dialogue like this shouldn't end in the past.

Over to You:
How do you approach 1 John 5:1? Do you see it as a strict equation for salvation, or a descriptive hallmark of a believer's life?

How heavily does original language syntax weigh into your own study of the text?

*  *  *

Note: A print-ready PDF version of this article is also available to view and download here.

The Message of Life in John's Gospel: A Resurrection Perspective

What is the message of life in John's Gospel for us today? Is it simply "Believe in Jesus for Eternal Life," or is a more specific content of faith required for salvation?

The Person and Work of Christ

Roger Fankhauser recently published an article on the gracelife.org website titled "The Person and Work of Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John," in which he attempts to show that after Christ's resurrection, belief in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus is essential for salvation. Fankhauser's conclusion is: 

"Assertions about the person and work of Jesus permeate the book of John. No one denies this. Individual verses (such as John 3:16) do not stand in isolation but are written in the context of who Jesus is and his death, burial, and resurrection (still future relative to the time of the events recorded in chapters 1-12). Application today of those same verses must include what impact, if any, the progress of history and progress of revelation have on the details of the verses."¹ 

I agree! I recently made the same point on Mike Sampat's "Toronto Bible Study" YouTube channel, when I said: "Using the disciples of Jesus to try and prove that believing in the DBR [death, burial, and resurrection] of Jesus for salvation is unnecessary today is anachronistic and denies [i.e., functionally negates] the progress of revelation."² I wrote that comment in response to Sampat, who was advocating a "promise-only" view of the saving message similar to that of the Grace Evangelical Society (GES). Sampat appears to be a GES acolyte, even if he may not officially endorse their teachings. Therefore, I want to warn readers to beware of Sampat's teachings on this doctrinal issue! Although he espouses many Free Grace views, he is sadly a proponent of a "crossless" interpretation of what a person must believe to be saved. I am praying for his repentance (2 Tim. 2:24-26).

The Message of Life in John's Gospel

My disagreement with this "crossless" view is not merely academic; it stems from a fundamental difference in how we interpret the Fourth Gospel's stated purpose. In order to rightly interpret the Fourth Gospel (cf. 2 Tim. 2:15), it is essential to understand that it is written from a resurrection perspective and therefore it must always be interpreted with that end in view.³ Some years ago, Dennis Rokser wrote a statement pertaining to this in which he said: 

"Hodges fails to note that John does not even personally appeal to his readers to personally believe the content of what has been written in his Gospel until he declares the record of Christ's death (John 19:35) and His bodily resurrection (John 20:31)."⁴ 

This is true, but in light of the "content of what has been written" and the context of John's gospel, Rokser's statement would more accurately read: 

"Furthermore, Hodges fails to note that John does not even personally appeal to his readers to personally believe the content of what has been written in his Gospel until he declares the record of Christ's death for our sins (John 19:35; cf. Jn. 1:29-34) and His bodily resurrection from the grave to appear 'in the presence of the His disciples' (John 20:30-31; cf. Jn. 19:38-21:14)." 

 

This is John's gospel message and what must be "believed" (cf. 1 Cor. 15:1-11).⁵

When I first posted the above comment online, a reader replied saying: "Compelling!"⁶ Yes, it is compelling because it is biblical. And the Bible is "living and active and sharper than a two-edged sword" (Heb. 4:12; cf. Jude 3, NKJV). Have you used it recently? If not, do so today!

ENDNOTES:

¹ Roger Fankhauser, "The Person and Work of Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John" (gracelife.org). www.gracelife.org/resources/grr/pdf/Fankhauser_Gospel_and_the_Cross.pdf

² Mike Sampat, "The Plumbline of God," Toronto Bible Study YouTube channel (July 18, 2026). Note: Sampat responded to my comment by appealing in particular to 1 John 5:1. My thoughts on 1 John 5:1 are beyond the scope of this blog post, but for those who may want more information on my Traditional Free Grace (TFG) understanding and interpretation of 1 John 5:1, see my dialog with Antonio da Rosa in the comments section of his blog post titled "'Whoever [simply] believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God' (1 John 5:1). Do you believe this?" Free Grace Theology blog (October 1, 2007).

³ Why is it crucial to understand that John's Gospel is written from a resurrection perspective and with the end in view? Because a correct application of Scripture must be based on a correct interpretation of Scripture. For a more detailed analysis, see my articles: "Getting the Gospel in Focus, Pt. 1" (FGFS, October 24, 2024), and "Getting the Gospel in Focus, Pt. 2" (FGFS, October 25, 2024). Also see an earlier article I wrote titled "Three Resurrection Signs of the Savior" (FGFS, November 2007)

⁴ Dennis Rokser, quoted in Lou Martuneac's blog post: "Stakes Through the Heart of Zane Hodges' Hydra Head" (October 8, 2008), In Defense of the Gospel blog.

⁵ Jonathan Perreault, in the comments of Lou Martuneac's blog post: "Stakes Through the Heart of Zane Hodges' Hydra Head" (October 8, 2008), In Defense of the Gospel blog. Note: My comment is also an edited version of a blog post I wrote titled "The Message of Life in John's Gospel: A Resurrection Perspective" (FGFS, October 8, 2008). The original blog post is no longer online.

⁶ See the comment by David Wyatt from 10/8/2008 at 11:56 AM in the comments of Lou Martuneac's blog post: "Stakes Through the Heart of Zane Hodges' Hydra Head" (October 8, 2008), In Defense of the Gospel blog.

Is the King James Bible Really "Without Error"?

How accurate is the King James Bible? Is the KJV really "without error"? Some say it is! Here's a statement by one "KJV-only" pastor: "We believe that the King James Bible is the Word of God without error." (Pastor Steven Anderson, Affirmation #1 from his Doctrinal Statement, Faithful Word Baptist Church, Tempe, AZ.)

In response to the above statement by Steven Anderson, we might ask a simple but maybe not so obvious question: What revision of the King James Bible are you saying is "without error"? Because there have been, in fact, several comprehensive revisions—and countless minor adjustments—to the original 1611 edition! Furthermore, if the King James Bible is really "without error," then it should not have even one inaccuracy. And this is exactly the problem. Because the KJV has far more than just one inaccuracy! This is quite obvious to those who simply open their eyes and look objectively at the facts without a preconceived belief that regardless of what it says it is "without error." To illustrate just how naïve such a notion really is, it would be comparable to someone denying that the Titanic sunk to the bottom of the ocean on that fateful night so many years ago, merely because it was said to be "unsinkable." The obvious problem is—it did sink! Thus, facts are facts regardless of how much a person is inclined to believe otherwise. And so I am going to cite some actual facts related to errors in the King James Bible. And just to highlight that it is not "without error" as Steven Anderson (and others) want us to believe, I will list 10 errors in translation that are unfortunately clearly evident in the KJV and which have been pointed out and verified by respected New Testament scholars. (I will confine my study specifically to the New Testament since my academic passion is New Testament Greek.) There are, no doubt, many more inaccuracies in the King James Version that could be listed, but what follows is a list of just 10 errors to illustrate the point. Here is a representative selection of

10 Errors in the King James Bible:

1) Matthew 3:2 - "Repent" (Gr. metanoeō). The New Testament Greek scholar A. T. Robertson says that "this is the worst translation in the New Testament."[1] J. B. Phillips has translated it more accurately as "change your hearts".[2]

2) Matthew 23:24 - "strain at a gnat." Daniel B. Wallace writes: "the KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.’ In the least, this illustrates not only that no translation is infallible but also that scribal corruptions can and do take place-even in a volume which has been worked over by so many different hands (for the KJV was the product of a very large committee of over 50 scholars)."[3]

3) John 20:17 - On the wording of this verse in the King James Version, the New Testament scholar Alfred Plummer observes: "The translation 'touch Me not' [in the KJV] is inadequate and gives a false impression. The verb (haptesthai) does not mean to 'touch' and 'handle' with a view to seeing whether His body was real; this Christ not only allowed but enjoined (v. 27; Lk. 24.39; comp. 1 Jn. 1:1): rather it means to 'hold on to' and 'cling to.' Moreover it is the present (not aorist) imperative; and the full meaning will therefore be, 'Do not continue holding Me,' or simply, hold Me not."[4] A. T. Robertson affirms: "Present middle imperative in prohibition with genitive case, meaning 'cease clinging to me' rather than 'Do not touch me.'"[5]

4) Acts 2:27 - "Thou wilt not abandon my soul in hell" (KJV), but the Greek word is hades (or sheol in Psalm 16:10), not "hell". Concerning this, William R. Newell advises: "Always read the Revised Version about the words Sheol—Hades: for it transliterates them. The King James simply obscures them by various renderings [such as 'hell' and 'grave']."[6] Commenting on Acts 2:27 and word "hell" in the KJV, The Pulpit Commentary likewise notes disapproval, saying that it is "surely not so good a rendering."[7] Commenting on this same text, Lenski likewise says that the translation "hell" is "unfortunate."[8] Many other statements could be cited to the same effect. See below on 1 Corinthians 15:55 for more information.

5) Acts 12:4 - "Easter" in the King James Version should actually be translated "Passover". The KJV translators inaccurately translated the Greek word πάσχα (pascha) as "Easter," when the correct translation is actually "Passover". Strangely, the KJV translators translated pascha as "Passover" in every other occurrence of the word in the New Testament, except not in Acts 12:4 where they incorrectly translated πάσχα as "Easter". Overall, I still like the King James Version, but even the KJV translators stated that their translation was not inspired.[9] The original manuscripts of the Bible are inspired, but not the subsequent translations. The KJV-onlyists who teach that the 1611 KJV is also inspired actually believe in what's called "double inspiration": that teaching is false. Albert Barnes wrote the following helpful statement in his commentary on Acts 12:4, saying this: "Intending after Easter. There never was a more absurd or unhappy translation than this. The original is simply after the Passover (meta to pascha). The word Easter now denotes the festival observed by many Christian churches in honor of the resurrection of the Saviour. But the original has no reference to that, nor is there the slightest evidence that any such festival was observed at the time when this book [The Book of Acts] was written. The translation is not only unhappy, as it does not convey at all the meaning of the original, but because it may contribute to foster an opinion that such a festival was observed in the time of the apostles. The word Easter is of Saxon origin, and is supposed to be derived from Eostre, the goddess of Love, or the Venus of the North, in honor of whom a festival was celebrated by our pagan ancestors in the month of April (Webster). Since this festival coincided with the Passover of the Jews, and with the feast observed by Christians in honor of the resurrection of Christ, the name came to be used to denote the latter. In the old Anglo-Saxon service-books the term Easter is used frequently to translate the word Passover. In the translation by Wycliffe, the word paske, i.e., passover, is used. But Tyndale and Coverdale used the word Easter, and hence, it has very improperly crept into our translation [the King James Version]."[10] Commenting on the word "Easter" in the King James Bible, Richard Tenaglia likewise writes: "There is no such church celebration as 'EASTER' in the Bible (KJV: Acts 12:4). Not only is there no such celebration as 'EASTER' in the Bible as we know it TODAY, but there is no such [equivalent] word as EASTER in the original manuscripts either. This mistranslation in the KJV Bible, shows that the translation IS NOT INFALLIBLE. The word SHOULD have been 'passover', a JEWISH feast. The original Greek word is 'pascha', which means 'passover'. Why the goof? Because one must remember that the KJV is a conglomerate Bible of which the earlier 'Bishop's Bible' of 1568 forms a small part and INFLUENCE in the KJV translation, which includes these hierarchal vestiges left over from Romanism."[11]

6) Romans 8:16 - The Holy Spirit "itself" (Rom. 8:16, KJV). The KJV calls the Holy Spirit an "it" (!) in Romans 8:16. This is equivalent to referring to the Holy Spirit as some thing rather than some one (a thing or impersonal force rather than a person). This view of the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force has historically been viewed as heretical by a number of different church councils, such as The Council of Alexandria (362 A.D.), The First Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.), and The Council of Chacedon (451 A.D.). According to orthodox biblical theology, the Holy Spirit is a person—the third member of the Holy Trinity. Commenting on Romans 8:16, the Bible commentary by Jameison, Fausset, and Brown corrects the wording in the Authorized Version on this vital point, saying: "The Spirit itself—It should be 'Himself' (see on v. 26)."[12] On Romans 8:26, the commentary likewise says, "but the Spirit itself—rather, "Himself."[13] Commenting on Romans 8:16, the New Testament scholar Kenneth Wuest affirms: "The Holy Spirit is a Person. The pronoun should be rendered 'Himself.'"[14] In Romans 8:16, the KJV gives the grammatical gender of the Greek pronoun instead of the natural gender. It's a mistake that a beginner might make. Concerning this, the NT scholar A. T. Robertson affirms: "It is a grave mistake to use the neuter 'it' or 'itself' when referring to the Holy Spirit."[15] Today, even a first year Greek student would know not to make such a mistake. Apparently we've come a long way in our understanding of Greek grammar since 1611.

7) 1 Corinthians 11:29 - "damnation" (KJV) is not an accurate rendering of the Greek in this context. The NT scholar J. J. Lias states that the Greek word which is used here rather means "judgment."[16] Commenting on the incorrect wording in the Authorized Version (A.V.), the NT scholar Henry Alford observes: "The judgment meant, as is evident by vv. 30-32, is not 'damnation,' as rendered in our A.V., a mis-translation, which has done infinite mischief."[17] Lias goes on to say, "That it is not final condemnation that is threatened, v. 32 clearly shews (Alford, De Wette)."[18] On the word "chastened" in 1 Cor. 11:32, Lias gives the following cross-references: Psalm 94:12; Proverbs 3:11-12; and Hebrews 12:5-11. In light of 1 Cor. 11:32 and these biblical cross-references, Lias remarks: "A clear proof that damnation is an incorrect translation in v. 29."[19] Commenting on this mistranslation in the KJV, Richard Tenaglia similarly states: "We do not drink 'damnation' to ourself when we receive the Lord's table unworthily as the KJV says: we drink judgment (discipline), or physical chastisement in this life (I Cor. 11:29). The word 'damnation' is a hangover from the old Roman Catholic idea that if you receive 'communion' in sin, and die, you would go to hell by their thinking. After all, King Henry the VIII broke off relations with Rome in 1534 only 34 years earlier than the publication of the Bishop's Bible in 1568 [which also says 'damnation' in 1 Cor. 11:29], parts of which were used in the KJV, only 77 years later. So it follows that The Church of England in those early years after separating from the Papacy, really was not very much different than the Roman church in doctrine."[20]

8) 1 Corinthians 15:55 - The KJV reads "grave" instead of "Hades" or "death". In 1 Corinthians 15:55, the King James Version (KJV) reads: "Oh grave, where is your victory?" – but the Greek word for "grave" in the Received Text (the Greek text from which we get the King James Version) is hade. Although some mistake Hades for the grave, they are two different places. Hades is the abode or realm of the dead, "the common receptacle of disembodied spirits," as Thayer has said in his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.[21] Similarly, H. A. Ironside says in his commentary on Psalm 16 that "Hades...is the place for disembodied spirits between death and resurrection, that is, the unseen world."[22] In light of the Greek in the Received Text (a.k.a., the Textus Receptus), 1 Corinthians 15:55 in the New King James Version (NKJV) reads, "O Hades, where is your victory?" But even this is probably not the best nor the most accurate reading. There is general agreement among New Testament scholars that the correct reading of 1 Corinthians 15:55 should be "O death" (Greek thanate, from thanatos) not "O Hades". The best and oldest New Testament Greek manuscripts read thanate, not hade. Thus the NIV more accurately translates verse 55, "Where, O death, is your victory?" For those who are curious, here's what some New Testament scholars have written concerning the correct reading of 1 Corinthians 15:55:

⦁ A. T. Robertson: "O death (thanate). Second instance. Here Paul changes Hades of the LXX [Septuagint] for Hebrew Sheol (Hosea 13:14) to death. Paul never uses Hades."[23]

⦁ Marvin Vincent: "O grave (hade). Which is the reading of the Septuagint. The correct reading is thanate, O death. So Rev. [RV1885.] Hades does not occur in Paul’s writings. In Romans 10:7 he uses abyss. Edwards thinks that this is intentional, and suggests that Paul, writing to Greeks, may have shunned the ill-omened name [Hades] which people dreaded to utter."[24]

⦁ Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown: "For 'O grave,' [as it reads in the KJV] the oldest MSS. and versions read, 'O death,' the second time [in 1 Cor. 15:55]."[25]

⦁ C. G. Findlay: "[Paul] freely adapts the words of Hosea, repeating thanate in the second line, where Hosea writes sheol (LXX hade), since death is the enemy he pursues throughout (Edwards notes that hades never occurs in Paul’s [Epistles])".[26]

⦁ W. E. Vine: "In 1 Cor. 15:55 the most authentic mss. have thanatos, death, in the 2nd part of the verse, instead of Hades, which the A.V. [KJV] wrongly renders 'grave' ('hell,' in the marg.)."[27]

⦁ C. I. Scofield: in The Scofield Reference Bible, the marginal note for "grave" (1 Cor. 15:55, KJV) reads "death."[28]

⦁ Spiros Zodhiates: "The change from 'grave' in the King James Version to 'death' in most of the modern translations is justified, since the Greek word hadees, which occurs in the Textus Receptus, does not occur in most manuscripts, and Paul never uses the word. Therefore the text we accept is, 'Where thy, death, the victory? Where thy, death, the sting?' This is the literal translation in the exact order in which the words occur in the Greek text."[29]

For those who follow the Textus Receptus or Received Text (the Greek text underlying the King James Version), it's important to remember that even if the correct reading in 1 Corinthians 15:55 is hades (as opposed to thanatos)—Hades is not the grave. In his book An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, biblical scholar and theologian W. E. Vine writes: "HADES (hades), the region of departed spirits of the lost (but including the blessed dead in periods preceding the ascension of Christ)...It corresponds to 'Sheol' in the OT. In the A.V. [KJV] of the O.T. and N.T., it has been unhappily rendered 'hell,' e.g., Ps. 16:10; or 'the grave,' e.g., Gen. 37:35; or 'the pit,' Num. 16:30, 33; in the N.T. the Revisers have always used the rendering 'Hades;' in the O.T. they have not been uniform in the translation, e.g., in Isa. 14:15, 'hell' (marg., 'Sheol'); usually they have 'Sheol' in the text and 'the grave' in the margin. It never denotes the grave, nor is it the permanent region of the lost; in point of time it is, for such, intermediate between decease and the doom of Gehenna. For the condition, see Luke 16:23-31....Note: In 1 Cor. 15:55 the most authentic mss. have thanatos, death, in the 2nd part of the verse, instead of Hades, which the A.V. [KJV] wrongly renders 'grave' ('hell,' in the marg.)."[30] Dr. H. A. Ironside likewise sees a difference between Hades and the grave. Commenting on the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke chapter 16, Ironside writes: "Others say 'You [Mr. Ironside] are mistaken when you think of Hades as a condition in which men are found after death. Hades is simply the grave.' I do not believe this for one moment. Scripture, I am certain, teaches the very opposite."[31] Similarly, William R. Newell (responding to Bullingerism) writes: "Bullinger says: 'Hades,—we might call it Grave-dom. There is not a place where the rendering grave would not be appropriate.' (for Hades). Now Matthew 16:18 at once proves this utterly false! Church saints' bodies have been buried in graves constantly; but Hades, the region at the earth's center (Matthew 12:40; Acts 2:27, R.V.), since our Lord's resurrection, has not admitted one saint into its gates: 'The Gates of Hades shall not prevail against it' (the Church)."[32] It's quite clear that there's a distinction between Hades and the grave and the one should not be confused with the other (as in the King James Bible). The point is simply this: even if one prefers the Textus Receptus source text over modern critical texts, the KJV translators still demonstrably mistranslated words within that text (e.g., Acts 12:4; Rom. 8:16; 1 Cor. 15:55).

9) Revelation 4:1 - "hereafter" in Revelation 4:1 is literally "after these things" (Gr. meta tauta). The Free Grace theologian William R. Newell explains as follows, saying: "In both the King James and Revised Versions an utterly inadequate translation is given of the last phrase of this divine outline. The Greek expression is meta tauta. 'Meta' is a Greek preposition meaning 'after'; 'tauta' is a neuter plural pronoun meaning 'these,' or 'these things.' To translate this phrase 'meta tauta' by the adverb 'hereafter' is not to translate it at all! That is shown in chapter 4:1, where this remarkable phrase meta tauta both opens and closes the verse—a remarkable thing! Let us read this verse: 'After these things (meta tauta) I saw, and behold, a door opened in heaven, and the first voice that I heard, as of a trumpet speaking with me, one saying, Come up hither, and I will show thee the things which must come to pass after these things' (meta tauta),—that is, after Church things. (a.) No one would dream of translating meta tauta at the beginning of this remarkable verse by 'hereafter.' It would make no manner of sense. We must translate it, 'after these things I saw.' (b.) But the use by the Spirit of God of this same phrase at the end of this verse compels us to believe that the things set forth after 4:1 happened just as really after the things of the preceding chapter as the vision of 4:1 happened after those things of chapters 1, 2 and 3. The messages to the seven churches have been formally and fully closed at the end of chapter 3 and what follows these Church things is given from chapter 4, onward."[33]

In Revelation 4:1, the King James Bible also incorrectly translated the perfect participle ἠνεῳγμένη as "was opened" when the correct rendering is "standing open" (as it reads in the NKJV, the Majority Standard Bible, and in most English Bible translations). Commenting on this verse, the NT scholar Charles Ellicott notes that the apostle John "did not look and see a door opening; he saw, and lo! the door stood open."[34] J. Vernon McGee likewise affirms: "John did not see this door opening as the Authorized Version of verse 1 suggests. This door was open all the time. It is the door through which believers have come to God for over nineteen hundred years. 'Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me' (John 14:6). He also said, 'I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture' (John 10:9). The open door to heaven is the Lord Jesus Christ."[35]

10) Revelation 4:6-8 - "beasts" in the KJV, but corrected to "living creatures" (Greek zoa) in the NKJV. Commenting on the word used in the King James Bible, "beasts," Trench quotes Broughton in the following manner: "Of the zoa ['living creatures']...he says, in language hardly too strong, 'they are barbarously translated beasts.' Works, p. 639."[36] Commenting on the phrasing in the Authorized Version, "the four beasts," Benson states: "and round about the throne—toward the four quarters, east, west, north, and south; were four beasts—Or rather living creatures, as ζωα means, (not beasts, certainly, any more than birds.) 'It was a most unhappy mistake,' says Doddridge, 'in our translators to render the word beasts, as it certainly signifies any other kind of animals; that is, of creatures which have animal life, as well as beasts. The word beasts not only degrades the signification, but the animals here mentioned have parts and appearances which beasts have not, and are represented in the highest sense rational.'"[37] Albert Barnes likewise states: "Were four beasts. This is a very unhappy translation, as the word beasts by no means conveys a correct idea of the original word. The Greek word—ζω̃ον—means properly a living thing; and it is thus indeed applied to animals, or to the living creation, but the notion of their being living things, or living creatures, should be retained in the translation."[38] The Bible commentary by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown on Rev. 4:1 says: "four beasts—The Greek for 'beasts,' ch. 13, I. II, is different, therion, the symbol for the carnal man by opposition to God losing his true glory, as lord, under Him, of the lower creatures, and degraded to the level of the beast. Here it is zoon, 'living creatures'; not beasts."[39] The NT scholar Marvin R. Vincent notes that the Revised Version correctly reads "living creatures," not "beasts" as in the Authorized (King James) Version. Vincent goes on to say: "Alford aptly remarks that beasts is the most unfortunate word that could be imagined. Beast is θηρίον. Ζῶον emphasizes the vital element, θηρίον the bestial."[40]

Conclusion

These ten representative examples of errors in the KJV effectively refute the notion of "double inspiration," or the belief that the King James Bible is a divinely inspired document on par with the original autographs of the New Testament. In other words, the King James Bible is not "without error," as Steven Anderson and other KJV-Onlyists would have us believe. If the King James translation were truly divinely inspired, it would logically contain no errors. (Thus my conclusion is not the logical fallacy of insufficient sampling, because even one verified error in the KJV is enough to prove that the document is not "without error.") However much of a blessing the KJV has been to men and women down through the centuries, it is outside the bounds of orthodoxy to claim that any translation of the Bible is "without error."

I agree with Lewis Sperry Chafer's assessment when he wrote: "It is a conspicuous fact that the comparatively few errors [Chafer was being gracious!] and inconsistencies in translation, found in the English Authorized Version of the New Testament [i.e., the King James Bible], serve to hinder, directly or indirectly, any clear understanding of the teachings of Scripture."[41] In the booklet titled The KJV Bible Only?, Richard Tenaglia writes from the same basic perspective as Chafer, and Tenaglia's statements form a fitting conclusion to this entire discussion. The following statements are excerpted from his conclusion. Tenaglia observes: "That the Bible teaches that there is SAFETY in a MULTITUDE of COUNSELORS [Prov. 11:14] is a principle that applies to the use of several translations of the Scriptures rather than just one, and can be applied in rebuke to the KJV-ONLY controversy. The reason I don't want the KJV-ONLY as my Bible, is to be sure that I can check other translations as well as the Greek and Hebrew texts for greater clarity, expanded insights, a more accurate focus, a more complete coverage of word meanings, a comparison of contexts, and even an analysis of various cross-references, etc. Any legalistic attempt to restrict a Christian to one rigid translation, is an attack on the Christian's freedom under grace."[42] Tenaglia goes on to conclude: "For we know that churches that have 'pastoral primacy' [i.e. the unscriptural practice of one-elder rule similar to the Roman Catholic hierarchy of a 'bishop,' which incidentally is another inaccurate rendering in the KJV in 1 Tim. 3:1-2], plus 'paper popery', may be guilty of the sin of pernicious prating. Only in churches with a balanced leadership: pastor AND staff evangelist (Eph. 4:11), with multiple rule (Heb. 13:7; 1 Pet. 5:1-3), and the freedom to use multiple Bible translations, will the Christian retain his freedom from legalism and divisive movements."[43]

Appendix 1:

Another Inaccuracy in the King James Bible: "Bishop" (1 Tim. 3:1, 2)

Regarding the KJV's inaccurate rendering of episkopos as "bishop" in 1 Timothy 3:1-2, the following statement in Bauer's Lexicon is to the point: "The ecclesiastical loanword 'bishop' [as in the KJV] is too technical and loaded with late historical baggage for precise signification of usage of episkopos and cognates in our literature, especially the NT."[44] Rather than translating episkopos as "bishop," Bauer gives the correct translation as either "overseer or supervisor."[45] Commenting on 1 Timothy 3:1 in the Authorized Version, the Bible scholar Adam Clarke similarly states: "Our term 'bishop' comes from the Anglo-Saxon biscop, which is a mere corruption of the Greek ἐπίσκοπος, and the Latin episcopus; the former, being compounded of ἐπί, over, and σκέπτομαι, I look or inspect, signifies one who has the inspection or oversight of a place, persons, or business; what we commonly term a superintendent."[46] Commenting on 1 Timothy 3:1, H. A. Ironside affirms: "The word translated 'bishop' means 'overseer.' [...] You will never find anything like the modern bishop in the Bible. A bishop today, both in the Roman Catholic Church and in other churches which came out of Rome, is one of superior rank, set in authority over other ministers; but there is no such idea as that in Scripture."[47] Commenting on the same text, William Kelley similarly states: "[The translation] 'Bishopric' or 'office of a bishop,' [as the KJV reads in 1 Tim. 3:1] misleads here; because the modern office, with which most are familiar, so greatly differs from the primitive reality. For there were in each assembly several, with co-ordinate governmental duties of a circumscribed nature, however valuable and to be honoured in their place. Hence it appears best and wisest, as well as most consistent, to call the function 'oversight' and the functionary 'overseer,' in accordance with the Authorized Version of Acts 20.28, where the elders of the Ephesian assembly (ver. 17), who met the apostle [Paul] at Miletus, are so designated."[48]

ENDNOTES:

[1] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 Vols., Vol. I, p. 24, quoting the NT scholar John A. Broadus.

[2] J. B. Phillips, The Gospels Translated into Modern English (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1957), p. 4. Note: See Matthew 3:2 in the Phillips Translation.

[3] Daniel B. Wallace, "Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is The Best Translation Available Today," p. 2. In a footnote, Wallace adds: "There are other mistakes in the KJV which persist to this day, even though this translation has gone through several editions. For example, the KJV in Heb 4:8 reads: 'For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.' This sounds as though Jesus could not provide the eternal rest that we all long for! However, the Greek word for Jesus is the same as the word for Joshua. And in the context of Heb 4, Joshua is obviously meant. There is no textual problem here; it is rather simply a mistake on the part of the translators, perpetuated for the last 400 years in all editions of the KJV." (Ibid., footnote 4.)

[4] Alfred Plummer, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 359.

[5] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 5, p. 312.

[6] William R. Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse, p. 397.

[7] A. C. Hervey, "The Acts of the Apostles," in The Pulpit Commentary, edited by H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, Vol. I, p. 53.

[8] R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of The Acts of the Apostles, p. 90.

[9] In the Preface to the King James Version of 1611, the translators state: "A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all, James iii. 2), also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current [circulated], notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it." (Preface to the 1611 King James Bible, "The Translators to the Reader," brackets and bold add.) The translators go on to say: "For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?" (Ibid.) This is a rhetorical question. The KJV translators are saying: "Name one thing ever written that was absolutely perfect (without error) where an Apostle or a prophet inspired by the Holy Spirit didn't have a direct hand in writing it." They are admitting that because they are not Apostles, they cannot produce a perfect, infallible text. Therefore, their work is inherently human and subject to potential error.

[10] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1956), p. 190, brackets added. Note: I updated the archaic spelling of Wycliffe's and Tyndale's names.

[11] Richard Tenaglia, The KJV Bible Only? (Milwaukee: GNMC, 1985), p. 24, emphasis his, brackets added.

[12] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (1878), Vol. II, p. 241.

[13] Ibid., p. 242.

[14] Kenneth S. Wuest, Romans in the Greek New Testament, p. 135.

[15] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. IV, p. 374.

[16] J. J. Lias, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 116.

[17] Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 208.

[18] J. J. Lias, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 116.

[19] Ibid., p. 117.

[20] Richard Tenaglia, The KJV Bible Only?, pp. 24-25, emphasis his, brackets added.

[21] Joseph Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), p. 11.

[22] H. A. Ironside, Studies on Book One of the Psalms (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1952), p. 86.

[23] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. IV, p. 199.

[24] Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. III, p. 286, emphasis his, brackets added. Note: I transcribed the Greek letters into English.

[25] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, Vol. II, p. 296, brackets added.

[26] C. G. Findlay, W. R. Nicoll, Editor, The Expositor's Greek New Testament, 5 Vols., Vol. II, p. 942.

[27] W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, see entry for "HADES".

[28] C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945), p. 1228.

[29] Spiros Zodhiates, Conquering the Fear of Death in View of the Empty Tomb, pp. 775-776, italics his. Zodhiates goes on to write: "Paul does not deal with hadees, which in other books of the New Testament is presented as the dwelling place to which men's disembodied spirits went. It would have been contrary to the whole trend of his argument in 1 Corinthians 15 for him to speak of hadees as an enemy, for he does not deal with the period preceding the resurrection of Christ, when the spirits of believers and unbelievers went to hadees. (Luke 16:19ff indicates that Abraham's bosom was the designation of the place in hadees to which the spirit of righteous Lazarus went, and the place of torment in hadees was where the unrighteous rich man was consigned.) After the resurrection of Christ, believers are never referred to as going to hadees, but as going to be with Christ (Acts 7:59, Phil. 1:23, Heb. 12:23). And Christ is in heaven (Mark 16:19, Luke 21:54, Acts 1:9, Heb. 4:14, 1 Pet. 3:22). Death is still an enemy of the Christian, for he still experiences it; but hadees is not, for the Christian does not go there. And it is with the external destiny of the Christian that Paul is primarily concerned in 1 Corinthians 15. His subject is the resurrection of the body, not the place where the soul dwells when disembodied." (Ibid., p. 775, italics his.)

[30] W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revel Company, 1966), pp. 187-188, ellipsis and bold added, italics his.

[31] H. A. Ironside, Death and Afterward, p. 25.

[32] William R. Newell, The Book of The Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978), p. 380. Note: This book was originally published in 1935.

[33] William R. Newell, Revelation Chapter-By-Chapter, pp. 390-391, emphasis his. Note: I placed parenthesis around "a." and "b." to make it more apparent that Newell is using them to mark out enumerated points within the paragraph.

[34] Charles J. Ellicott, A New Testament Commentary for English Readers, Vol. III, p. 551.

[35] J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983), Vol. V, p. 929.

[36] Richard C. Trench, On the Authorized Version of the New Testament, p. 102, endnote 1.

[37] Joseph Benson, Critical, Explanatory, and Practical Notes (New York: 1847), Vol. II, p. 719.

[38] Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Book of Revelation (New York: 1854), p. 137.

[39] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary: Critical, Practical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (Chicago: Fleming H. Revell, n.d.), NT, Vol. II, p. 544.

[40] Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. II, p. 481.

[41] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Satan, 1919 Edition, p. 21.

[42] Richard Tenaglia, The KJV Bible Only?, p. 28, emphasis his, brackets added.

[43] Ibid., p. 29, emphasis his, brackets added. 

[44] Walter Bauer, Frederick William Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition, p. 379.

[45] Ibid, emphasis his. 

[46] Adam Clarke, A Commentary and Critical Notes (New York: 1884), Vol. II, p. 338, emphasis his. Note: I placed quotation marks around the word "bishop" to make it more apparent that Clarke is referring to that specific word.

[47] H. A. Ironside, Addresses on the First and Second Epistles of Timothy, pp. 75-76, brackets added.

[48] William Kelly, An Exposition of the Two Epistles to Timothy (London: 1948), p. 58, brackets added. Note: I updated the Roman numerals of the original to the current format.