A Free Grace Review of William F. Beck's "The New Testament in the Language of Today"

Some years ago I wrote a blog post titled “Zane Hodges on Bible Translation” (FGFS, July 3, 2018), in which I referenced Hodges’ review of William F. Beck's New Testament in the Language of Today. A reader recently asked me what I thought of it, and in response I wrote the following reply. I trust it will be helpful to others who may have a similar question or who may just want a Free Grace perspective on Beck's New Testament. The question the reader asked was this: “What is your opinion of Beck's American Translation of the Bible?” So here is my Free Grace review of Beck's translation:

I would basically agree with Zane Hodges’ review of it in Bibliotheca Sacra (July 1964). And I should preface my comments by saying that I have not read Beck’s NT cover to cover. But from what I have read of it, I would agree with Hodges when he says that “the total result is disappointing.” That's not to say that there are not certain things that I like about it; there are indeed things I like about Beck’s translation. For example, and this might seem rather minor, but again, this is just my initial observations coming from someone who has perused the translation but not really studied it in depth; but what I can say that I do like about it is the stauron, the Greek stauron on the front cover: which is the Greek symbol for the cross. And I recall that in the front flyleaf or inside the front cover, Beck has an explanation of it which I think is very interesting and informative. (See Beck's explanation of the stauron here.) And this is coming from someone who is a student of Koine Greek. Notice I said “student”. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but as someone who is interested in the language of the New Testament, I find the stauron intriguing. It gives Beck’s NT a historical quality that sort of takes me back to that era, the era when the New Testament was first written. And actually, I kept Beck's New Testament just for that reason: because I like that the stauron (the cross) is on the front cover, along with his explanation of it. And I kept Beck’s NT for another reason too, well three reasons actually. And these are three things I like about his NT: 1) the stauron symbol on the front cover and his explanation of it. 2) The second thing I like about Beck’s NT is that he has an interesting summary of Bible translation in his introduction, and I found it quite inspiring actually. Beck talks about how there was persecution and how the pagans tried to stamp out the writings of the New Testament but that only caused it to be spread even more. That section is not Beck’s translation of the NT; it's his introduction. I’m just saying that I found it interesting. But again, that's not his translation of the NT per se, so it's sort of two different things. But that's the second thing that I like about his translation (or his NT) in general. 3) And then the third thing that I like about it is just that it's good to use as a reference. I would pretty much say that I would put a disclaimer on it: “FOR REFERENCE ONLY!” That's pretty much how I view Beck’s NT, or to sum it up that would be my view of it: use it for reference only! I agree with Zane Hodges when he says that the translation itself is “disappointing.”

And so now I’ll get into the things that I don't particularly like about Beck’s translation. I mentioned the three things that I do like about it. And the things that I like are really not in regards to his translation per se, they are more just things I like about his NT (the book) in general. But as far as the actual translation goes, like Hodges, I too found it “disappointing.” Let me reiterate that I haven't read Beck’s translation cover to cover, but from what I have read of it and in perusing it, I would agree with Hodges’ assessment of it. I found Beck’s translation quite wooden actually. I didn’t find it to be in the language of the people or “in the language of today”. And maybe that's just a difference between the 1960s when Beck wrote it, to today in 2024: that would be 60 plus years, 65 years almost. Be that as it may, I thought the translation was much too wooden: it was stilted; the words didn't flow really at all. No offense to Beck, but it seemed to me as if it was written by someone who did not have a good grasp of the English language. It was almost as if English was his second language. Like I said, to me the language and wording was very stilted. The translation seemed choppy. It just seemed really choppy and difficult to read: not hard to read, but not enjoyable to read. And so I was not impressed with Beck’s translation for that reason, but also for the reasons mentioned by Hodges in his review of it. Some of which I will get to next.

In Beck's translation he apparently removed all occurences of the word “grace” and replaced them all with the word “love”. And that's just bad theology. I mean, like Hodges said in his review, they're two different words with two different meanings. I like what J. Vernon McGee has said in regards to God’s love, and this is a great point. It's in McGee’s Thru The Bible commentary on Ephesians chapter 2. It's McGee's commentary on Ephesians 2:1-7 to be exact. McGee really explains it well: he points out that God doesn't save us by love. Now that might surprise some people to hear that. Yes, God does love us and God loves the whole world. And God is love. But He doesn’t save us by love; He saves us by grace! Ephesians 2:8-9 says: “For by grace are you saved….” It doesn't say, “For by love are you saved.” I refer you again to McGee's Thru The Bible commentary on Ephesians 2:1-7. (In McGee’s Thru The Bible radio broadcast, the timestamp is approximately at the 15:00 minute mark to the 21:00 minute mark.) This is where McGee talks about how a hippie came up to him one evening after a Bible study. McGee says: “One young fellow who had been attending came up to me. He had on a funny hat with ‘Love, love, love’ written all over it. He had on a funny coat with ‘Love, love, love’ written all over it. He had ‘Love, love’ on his trousers and even on his shoes. I asked, ‘Why in the world do you have ‘love’ written all over you?’ ‘Man.’ he said, ‘God is love.’ ‘Well,’ I said, ‘I agree with you. Nothing could be truer than that.’ Then he added, ‘God saves us by His love.’ I answered, ‘I don’t agree with that. God doesn’t save us by His love.’” (McGee, Ephesians, p. 74.) And the young man said, “What do you mean?” And McGee explained to the hippie that God doesn't save us by love, He saves us by grace! And in the radio broadcast, McGee says that he thought the hippie was going to give him John 3:16. And McGee was surprised that the man didn't appeal to John 3:16. But McGee explained that even John 3:16 doesn't say that God saves us by love. What John 3:16 says is: “For God so loved the world, that...” What? That He saved the world? No! It says, “For God so loved the world, that He gave….” Right? God couldn't just save the world by love; He couldn't just “open the back door of heaven and slip us in under cover of darkness” (as McGee put it). Neither could He just let down the bars of heaven at the front gate and bring us in; because God is more than just love, He is also light. And He is holy, and righteous, and just. And so He can't do anything that is morally wrong or in violation of any of His attributes. And furthermore, man also must accept the offer of salvation, i.e. believe! And so the point I’m making (and the point that McGee was making) is that there's a real distinction between love and grace. And Beck's translation confuses the two, and that's a real problem: not only theologically, but also just because they're two different words with two different meanings. I mean, to confuse those two words seems like a very elementary mistake! (It reminds me of how Sherlock Holmes always used to say, “It’s elementary my dear Watson.”) I'm surprised that Beck didn't see the difference between love and grace! But regardless of that, the fact of the matter is that his translation doesn't use the word “grace” at all! Instead, he replaces it with the word “love”. So I view that as one of the problems or at least a weakness of Beck’s translation, and I think theologically most people would probably agree that love and grace are two different things. And even in the second edition of Beck’s NT (which was published after his death), the editors went back to using the word “grace”. Because I think they knew, as I tried to explain, that love is not a synonym for grace. I mean, they're two different words and they have two different meanings theologically. So in the second edition of Beck's New Testament the editors went back to using the word “grace”: which I think is good. But my comments pertain to Beck’s translation, which is the first edition. So that would be the second thing I think is disappointing about his translation: that he completely omits the word “grace,” and replaces it instead with the word “love”.

So just to recap, the first thing that I don't like about Beck's translation, or that I think is a weakness of it, is that it's very choppy and stilted to read. For example, the King James Version is, in a way, difficult to read just because it's old English. But to me, when I read it, at least it flows smoothly; there's a rhythm and a cadence to the King James Bible in the way that it's written. Yes, it's hard to understand (or it can be hard to understand), but to me at least the words seem to flow more or less smoothly and there's a rhythm to it. There is a cadence to it, almost like a poetic rhythm and cadence. Whereas in Beck's translation, although he was trying to improve upon the King James Bible, in my opinion he failed to do so. Or to say it another way, IMO he did not succeed in improving upon the King James Version. Yes, some things are translated more colloquially in Beck’s translation. Beck said that he tried to make his translation read as if Jesus was having coffee and donuts! But as another reviewer has said, “it seems inappropriate to picture Jesus holding a doughnut as he says, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,’ or a cup of coffee as he says, ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega.’ There is something peculiarly tactless about this attempt to give a conversational tone to the discourses of Christ and his apostles, which are anything but casual.” I completely agree. So those are two things that I don't particularly like about Beck’s translation: 1) to me it reads very choppy, and 2) I don't like how Beck removed the word “grace” from his translation, and what's more, he used the word “love” to replace it. I mean, if Beck would have substituted some other word or phrase that was accurate to the meaning of grace it would have been fine. Beck could have explained the concept of grace by saying something like “undeserved favor” and that would have been fine because that is actually what “grace” means! That would have been helpful. But unfortunately that’s not what he did. So that's the second thing I don't particularly like about his translation.

And then the third thing that I don't particularly like, or that I find disappointing about Beck's translation, is that for the word “justification” he replaced it with the phrase “become righteous”. But technically that's not what justification means. Justification means “to declare righteous”. The emphasis being that it is a declaration of righteousness. Not that the person literally "becomes" righteous (in their behavior). Yet that's what Beck’s translation might lead someone to believe. But that would be incorrect. So that's more of a theological issue. It's more of a nuanced theological discussion than the difference between love and grace, which is maybe a more obvious difference or distinction. But justification technically is a declaration, not a transformation (which the phrase “become righteous” might lead a person to think). In other words, by removing the word “justification” and replacing it by saying “becomes righteous,” someone might easily be led to believe that what is being referred to is a transformation of behavior, rather than a declaration of righteousness (as the word “justification” properly signifies). It's true that at the point of justification each and every believer does become a new creation in Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:17), but that's a positional truth. That's how God views us. In other words, that’s our new standing in God's eyes. Whereas in our condition in this world we are still sinners! And we still sin. We didn't necessarily “become righteous” in the sense of a change of behavior. So I think Beck’s explanation of justification is confusing at best. I'm not going to say that it's necessarily wrong because if you understand it, we do “become righteous” in the sense that in God's eyes we become righteous in terms of how He views us in Christ. But my point is that justification does not technically mean “to become righteous”. Rather, it means “to declare someone righteous”. So for that reason I think Beck’s translation is just not helpful. At best it's unhelpful, at worst it's incorrect. So this is just another example of why I think that overall, Beck’s translation is (as Hodges said) “disappointing.” So just to review, the three things that I would say are disappointing about Beck’s translation are: 1) the wording is stilted, wooden, and choppy, 2) Beck completely omits the word grace, and he substitutes the word “love” for “grace,” and 3) he removed the word “justification” and replaced it with the phrase “become righteous” (when more accurately it should be translated “to declare righteous”).

So to sum it up, those are three things that I like about Beck’s New Testament and three things that I think are rather disappointing about it. But basically I would agree with Hodges’ review of it. For more information I would point you to the link in my first comment. At the conclusion of that article the author also includes Hodges’ review of Beck’s NT. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.

425 Christian Cartoons by E. J. Pace

The Sunday School Times, Feb. 5, 1921.

"How marvelously illumined the Bible becomes in the light of this ancient lamp!" The lamp's flame is captioned with the words: "THE BLESSED HOPE OF OUR LORD'S RETURN". The writing on the lamp says: "FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIANITY". The man studying the Bible is E. J. Pace: it's a self-portrait!

* * *

The following 425 Christian cartoons by E. J. Pace are from The Sunday School Times magazine (1916-1925). They are now safely archived on the Internet Archive website. The drawings appeared in The Sunday School Times as weekly teaching lessons titled: "The Lesson Cartoon for This Week". The link is below. Enjoy!

425 Christian Cartoons by E. J. Pace

Semi-Pelagianism and Free Grace Theology: What's the Difference?

In an article on the Free Grace International website titled "Was Zane Hodges an Antinomian? Is Free Grace?" (published a year or two ago, although the exact date isn't given), the author Shawn Lazar makes the following statement which prompted me to write these thoughts in reply, and which I have now incorporated into this blog post. Lazar says: 

“The ‘semi-Pelagian’ label is just as unhelpful. I think that Calvinists call anyone who affirms free will, or who denies total inability, or who denies that regeneration precedes faith a ‘semi-Pelagian.’ I suppose Hodges qualifies, but it’s an unhelpful term, referring to a debate within early Roman Catholic thought that has nothing to do with Hodges.”

In reply I shared the following insights, which I trust will be a blessing especially to those who yearn to be freed from the bondage of legalism and from a works-based system of salvation (i.e. "back-loading" the gospel) and a works-based set of rules to living the Christian life, rather than simply being led by the Spirit of the Lord (2 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 5:16-18). Here's what I said:

Shawn,

This is an excellent response to the Reformed view, and it highlights how their charge that Free Grace Theology is antinomianism is actually self-refuting. You also do a good job in pointing out how the Reformed view inaccurately portrays and characterizes the Free Grace view. For example, even according to the Reformed definition of antinomianism and their explanation of it, Zane Hodges is not an antinomian! So their charge that Zane Hodges teaches antinomianism is [false and] self-refuting.

But I just want to push back on one statement you made in your article, when you said in regards to semi-Pelagianism, “I suppose Hodges qualifies [as a ‘semi-Pelagian’]”. If you are ONLY referring to the three particular points of agreement that you mentioned in your article, I would concur that in a limited sense there are some similarities. But to use an illustration, the DNA of monkeys is quite similar to that of humans, and we would hopefully not make the mistake of reasoning or concluding that the two species are therefore the same; they are not! My point is [simply] to say that overall, there is more to semi-Pelagianism than just the three tenets that you mentioned, and that is what I want to focus on here. 

I agree with you when you said that in general, to label Free Grace theology as semi-Pelagianism is “unhelpful”. I think that should be one of the key takeaways of this whole discussion. In the historic sense of what semi-Pelagianism taught or is defined as, neither Zane Hodges nor Free Grace theology teach semi-Pelagianism. Because in addition to the three tenets or beliefs that you mentioned in regards to it, semi-Pelagianism also taught that “People can make the first move toward God by seeking God.” (G. Michael Cocoris, “Calvinism: Simply Explained and Biblically Evaluated,” pg. 6.) That statement of semi-Pelagianism is false in light of what theologians refer to as God's “prevenient grace,” or God's grace to ALL mankind (not just the “elect” or a select few). One aspect of God's prevenient grace is the universal convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit (see John 16:8-9). In this passage, Jesus specifically says that the Holy Spirit will convict the whole “world” (Jn. 16:8; cf. Jn. 1:9, 12:31-32; 1 Jn. 2:2) because they don't believe in Him. In regards to this, Norman Geisler has correctly pointed out that “extreme Calvinism often mistakenly assumes that the exercise of faith as a condition for receiving the gift of salvation must mean they [i.e. the unsaved] can do this unaided by God's grace. As noted earlier, no one can believe unto salvation without the aid of God's grace.” (Geisler, Systematic Theology, emphasis his.) In other words, God is the one who initiates salvation and who first seeks the sinner and draws the sinner to Himself through the light of God's Word (Jn. 1:9), the universal convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:8-11), and even general revelation (Rom. 1:18-20). In an article titled “Is Ignorance Eternal Bliss?,” Bob Wilkin has well said: “God brings the explicit good news of Jesus Christ to all who respond to the light they have by seeking God. Romans 3:11b, ‘there is none who seeks after God,’ looks at people when left to their own initiative. Clearly since God takes the initiative, we are free to seek Him in response (Acts 17:27).” (Wilkin, “Is Ignorance Eternal Bliss?” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society [Spring 2003], p. 12.) 

My point is simply to show that strictly speaking, Free Grace Theology cannot accurately be labeled “semi-Pelagianism”. Although Free Grace Theology would agree (as you pointed out) that man has a free will, that man is not totally unable to respond to God, and that regeneration does not precede faith in Christ – merely advocating those three doctrinal beliefs doesn't make Free Grace Theology “semi-Pelagian” because semi-Pelagianism is much more than that. (Refer back to my illustration of the comparison between the DNA of two different species. The point being that similarity does not equate to identity.) As I mentioned, semi-Pelagianism also taught that “People can make the first move toward God by seeking God.” (Cocoris, op. cited.) That is false, and Free Grace Theology teaches no such thing. Rather, Free Grace Theology teaches that GOD makes the “first move”! God first seeks the lost (cf. Luke 19:10). And sinners respond to God’s initiative by then seeking God, “God did this so that they would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from any one of us” (Acts 17:27).

And so my point is to say that just because two theological belief systems have some similarities, it would be wrong to conclude that they are therefore one and the same. When in fact that would be overlooking any differences between them. In other words, it would be wrong to mistake similarity for identity. If having points of agreement is the new requirement for equating two theological belief systems, then Reformed theology is Roman Catholicism because there are similarities! But obviously there's more to it than that, and merely looking at similarities doesn't factor in the differences. But when those differences are taken into consideration, it's obvious that the two belief systems are not identical; and in the same way, Free Grace Theology should not be equated with semi-Pelagianism.

Philo on Repentance: Is It a Change of Mind or Something Different?

Commenting on Philo's view of repentance, the Theological Dictionary of New Testament Theology (TDNT) edited by Gerhard Kittel, begins by saying:

"Even the linguistic understanding of metanoeō and metanoia in Philo displays the synthesis of Gk. [Greek] culture and Jewish religion which is a general mark of the Alexandrian Jew. Philo uses the terms in the same sense as the Gk. world around him for 'change of mind' or 'repentance' (-976f.)."[1]

First of all, something very interesting to notice here is that the TDNT affirms that during Philo's lifetime (he lived from 20 BC - 50 AD, and he was therefore a contemporary of Christ and of the apostles who wrote the NT), "the Greek world around him" -- that is, the Greek world of Philo's day, was using the words metanoeō and metanoia in the sense of a "change of mind"! This is exceedingly important to understand, because Reformed theologians (and even some non-traditional Free Grace folks) try to make the case that in the New Testament era, the meaning of metanoia changed from its classical usage ("change of mind") and took on a new and different meaning. But here Kittel tells us otherwise! The meaning of metanoia in the Greek world during Philo's lifetime (20 BC - 50 AD) was the same as it's classical meaning: a "change of mind"!

Kittel goes on to site specific examples from Philo's writings where this meaning and usage of metanoia is clearly seen. For example, Kittel cites Philo's work titled De Legum Allegoriis (Leg. All., II, 60f.), "where the metanoein [repentance] of the wise is 'reconsideration,' or Deus Imm. [Quod Deus Immutabilis Sit], 33, where the alteration of God's judgment or purpose, megaginōskein ['to have great understanding'] in 21, is described as metanoia".[2]

But Philo also describes metanoia as behavior change.[3] And so, like many theologians today, although Philo agrees that the basic meaning of metanoia is a "change of mind," he goes on to embellish that definition and invest it with theology that demands much more![4] Regarding this, Dr. Charlie Bing has correctly pointed out that "[in] the original language...repentance was an inner change. Any addition of outward conduct was imported by theological bias."[5]

Philo was not immune to having "theological bias" (or biases); this is clearly evident from a statement by H. A. A. Kennedy in his book Philo's Contribution to Religion. In reference to Philo's view of man, Kennedy observes: "The speculation to which we have just referred is, in a sense, typical of Philo's views on the origin and constitution of human nature. These often consist of an attempted blend of Platonic, Stoic, and Aristotelian conceptions. Often they represent Philo's theological bias, to a large extent moulded by Old Testament ideas."[6] And so, "theological bias" must be taken into account and factored in when considering Philo's views on any religious topic (including the doctrine of repentance), because it does no good to artificially and dishonestly compartmentalize Philo's views on repentance apart from his other beliefs; but rather, together they form Philo's Contribution to Religion.

In light of the fact that Philo's views are an amalgamation of biblical ideas along with "Platonic, Stoic, and Aristotelian conceptions," it is therefore especially sad to see some apparently Bible-believing Christians adopting his works-based view of repentance![7] Such a view of repentance has become the new "golden calf" in many of today's churches and theological institutions. Religious syncretism is unfortunately still a snare for God's children today. How much better (and more accurate) to say that biblical repentance is simply "a change of mind"! This understanding of repentance keeps salvation by grace completely free, and it also properly distinguishes between repentance (the root) and the fruit which should follow (Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20; Eph. 2:10, KJV).

References:

[1] Johannes Behm, Edited by Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), Volume 4, p. 993.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., pp. 993-994.

[4] For more information on this tendency among theologians to embellish the basic meaning of metanoia with theology that demands much more, see my blog post titled "John MacArthur on Repentance" (FGFS, May 1, 2021).

[5] Charlie Bing, "Quotes on Repentance as a Change of Mind, Part 1" (GraceNotes, Number 92). 

[6] H. A. A. Kennedy, Philo's Contribution to Religion (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1919), p. 79, bold added.

[7] For example, see the article on the logos.com website by Timothy Miller titled "Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Something Different?" (January 27, 2023). In the article, Miller argues that although biblical repentance is a change of mind, in his view it must also include a "radical" outward change of life. Miller quotes Philo in support of his view, in particular when Philo says that repentance means that "a sinless walk must replace the former sinning." But according to that definition of repentance, no one has truly repented (Prov. 20:9; Eccl. 7:20; Rom. 3:10-12, 3:23; 1 Jn. 1:8), and therefore that would mean that Miller himself is not even saved! So Miller's view of repentance is self-refuting. I also noticed that Miller agrees with Wayne Grudem's definition of repentance (see footnote 11 in Miller's article). But similar to Philo's interpretation of repentance, Grudem's view is also unbiblical. For more information see my blog post titled "Free Grace Theology: 6 Ways Grudem Misrepresents Biblical Repentance" (FGFS, December 14, 2019).

How D. L. Moody Helped Me

By J. Wilbur Chapman, D. D.

I will tell you how to be saved, and how you may know you are a Christian. I was studying for the ministry, and I heard that D. L. Moody was to preach in Chicago, and I went down to hear him. I finally got into his after-meeting, and I shall never forget the thrill that went through me, when he came and sat down beside me as an inquirer. 

He asked me if I was a Christian. I said, "Mr. Moody, I am not sure whether I am a Christian or not." He asked me some questions as to whether I was a church member, and I said I was, but was not always sure whether I was a Christian or not. He very kindly took his Bible and opened it at the fifth chapter of John, and the twenty-fourth verse, which reads as follows: "Verily, verily I say unto you, he that heareth my Word and believeth on Him that sent Me hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life." 

 

Suppose you had read that for the first time, wouldn’t you think it was wonderful? I read it through, and he said: "Do you believe it?" I said, "Yes." "Do you accept it?" I said, "Yes." "Well, are you a Christian?" "Mr. Moody, I sometimes think I am, and sometimes I am afraid I am not." He very kindly said, "Read it again." So I read it again. "Verily, verily I say unto you, he that heareth my Word and believeth on Him that sent Me hath everlasting life, and shall not come unto condemnation, but is passed from death unto life."

Then he said, "Do you believe it?" I said, "Yes." "Do you receive Him?" I said, "Yes." "Well," he said, "are you a Christian?"

I just started to say over again that sometimes I was afraid I was not, when the only time in all the years I knew him, and loved him, he was sharp with me. He turned on me with his eyes flashing and said, "See here, whom are you doubting?"

Then I saw it for the first time, that when I was afraid I was not a Christian I was doubting God’s Word. I read it again with my eyes overflowing with tears. 

Since that day I have had many sorrows and many joys, but never have I doubted for a moment that I was a Christian, because God said it. 

Now what I ask you to do is to plant your feet upon this promise, and say "Yes, from this moment I know I am a Christian."

Reference:

J. Wilbur Chapman, "HOW D. L. MOODY HELPED ME," Herod de Wahrheit (April 1927), pp. 284-285. Excerpted from a gospel tract by the same title. Note: The magazine's title "Herod de Wahrheit," is German for "Herald of Truth". It appears to be an early 20th-century Amish Mennonite periodical that was published by the Mennonite Publishing House, Scottdale, PA.

"According To The Scriptures"

Little Jetts Teach the Lesson 

By Wade C. Smith

According To The Scriptures

Excerpted from The Sunday School Times (March 28, 1925), p. 210. Cf. Wade C. Smith, The Little Jetts New Testament (Boston: W. A. Wilde Company, 1944), p. 195. 

Paul's Command to Name Names: Unloving or Unpopular?

If you’ve been around the Christian community for any length of time, you have no doubt heard it said that we shouldn't “name names” because that would be unloving and divisive. People who say we shouldn’t “name names” probably have good intentions. (But as the saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”!) They don't want to "rock the boat" or "stir up the pot". You may have even heard them quote Bible verses, such as when the apostle Paul says to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3, KJV). Notice though, that Paul specifically qualifies it by saying “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (KJV). In other words, Paul isn't saying to preserve unity at all costs (at the expense of, for example, standing for the truth, cf. 3 Jn 3:4). But rather, Paul qualifies it by saying, in effect, “if at all possible” or in other words: “endeavor to preserve” (KJV), “try your best” (CEV), “make it your aim” (J. B. Phillips), “with eager earnestness to maintain the unity” (Williams translation). And so yes, of course that is what we strive for and endeavor to do. And yet we see that Paul himself “named names”! Paul himself specifically called out by name false teachers in the church. Paul himself (the writer who penned Ephesians 4:3) “named names,” and so obviously there is a biblical precedent and example to call out false teachers by name. And as I explained, we are to do everything possible to “endeavor to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3; cf. Rom. 12:18). But when wolves come in among the flock (Matt. 7:16; Acts 20:26-30) or in other words, when false teachers come into the congregation and start preaching a false gospel or when they introduce destructive heresies and begin to lead God's children astray, then we need to call them out by name (1 Tim. 1:19-20; 2 Tim. 2:17-18; 1 Cor. 11:1, etc.). And that is completely biblical! In fact, not to do so would actually be disobedience to the Lord! In other words, not to call out false teachers by name, would make someone, as Paul says, “a man-pleaser, not a God-pleaser” (see Galatians 1:10). Jay Adams has well said: “In some circles, the fear of controversy is so great that preachers, and congregations following after them, will settle for peace at any cost—even at the cost of truth, God’s truth. The idea is that peace is all-important. Peace is a biblical ideal (Rom. 12:18 makes that clear: 'If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with everybody.') but so is purity. The peace of the church may never be bought at the cost of the purity of the church. That price is too dear.”[1]

Where is the command in the New Testament to call out false teachers by name? We have examples of it in the Bible, but where is it ever commanded? First of all, we have a clear command from the lips of Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 11:1, when he tells us (specifically he tells this to the church in Corinth, and by extension to all Christians) to “follow my example, even as I follow Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). And what example has Paul given to us in the New Testament? Did Paul “name names”? Did the apostle Paul call out false teachers by name? He most certainly did! And not just on one or two occasions, but actually repeatedly in his epistles! For example, in 1 Timothy 1:19-20 the apostle Paul says this: “Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some [and who might they be?] having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered unto Satan [!] that they may learn not to blaspheme.” And so here we see the apostle Paul is not just leaving it vague when he says “some have put away faith” (or the faith, i.e. the Christian faith), but he actually specifies who those people are by name, namely Hymenaeus and Alexander. Paul makes a similar statement in terms of naming names, or in other words, we find another example of Paul doing that very thing in 2 Timothy 2:17-18, when he says: “And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.” So here again we see the apostle Paul citing two false teachers by name! And who would accuse the apostle Paul of being unloving or unbiblical? Obviously he’s not being unloving or unbiblical. Rather, he’s speaking by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; this should be obvious (see 2 Tim. 3:16-17). But someone may say, “Well, he was the apostle Paul. We are not apostles. We don’t have that authority.” Au contraire! (Au contraire! means “On the contrary!”) If someone makes that objection or one to that effect, point them to 1 Corinthians 11:1 where the apostle Paul commands the Corinthian Christians (and by extension all Christians) to follow his example as he follows Christ! Again, notice what Paul says: “Be ye [this is a command!] followers of me even as I also am of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:1, KJV). Notice here that not only does Paul command us to follow his example, but he points us back to Christ’s example! Paul is saying, in effect, “I'm following Christ's example!” 

Did Christ "name names"? And if so, where? Where exactly did Christ “name names”? In answer to this, there is perhaps no better statement than the one by Dr. Walter Martin, the author of the classic book Kingdom of the Cults. Notice what he says, first in regards to the apostle Paul, and then in regards to Christ. Walter Martin correctly states: “We don’t wish to do this [name names] because we don’t want to offend people. You can’t use names [people say]. Since when? ‘Hymenaeus and Philetus have erred concerning the truth. They teach the resurrection is past. They overturn the faith of the church.’ [2 Tim. 2:17-18.] Didn’t Paul say that? ‘Alexander the coppersmith hath done me much harm. May the Lord reward him according to his works.’ [2 Tim. 4:14.]” So Walter Martin draws attention to the fact that although some people tell us we are not to “name names,” the apostle Paul named names: “Hymenaeus and Philetus” and “Alexander the coppersmith”! And notice that Paul doesn’t merely say “Alexander,” but he says specifically “Alexander the coppersmith”. Paul is really nailing it down and being specific! Paul wants there to be no confusion about who he's referring to.[2] But where did Jesus call out false teachers by name? Besides the fact that Jesus is the author of the entire Bible (in fact, Jesus is Himself “the Word,” Jn 1:1; Rev 19:13), and therefore any place in the Word of God that is an example of calling out false teachers by name can be understood as from the lips of God Himself (2 Tim. 3:16, assuming of course that it was commanded by God), did not the Lord Jesus say to the apostle Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan [!], for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but mans” (Matt 16:23; Mk 8:33). And so this is one example of Jesus calling out a false teacher (one of his own disciples no less!) by name. This no doubt brings to mind the name of another disciple whom Jesus specifically identified, not so much as a false teacher but as the one who would betray Him, namely Judas Iscariot (see Matt 26:21-25; Mk 14:18-21; Lk. 22:21-22; Jn 13:26-27). Another example is when the Pharisees told Jesus that Herod wanted to kill Him, and Jesus responded by saying, "Go ye, and tell THAT FOX, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected [i.e. reach My goal]" (Luke 13:32). And what did Jesus say to the Pharisees, or at least about the Pharisees? Notice what Walter Martin says: “When our Lord was questioned by the Pharisees, the Sadducees, by the Herodians, by the people who were constantly trying to entrap Him – Jesus did not turn around and say, ‘God loves you. The Lord bless you. Depart in peace. Everything’s going to be alright. Remember, love one another.’ And then preach [to] them the Sermon on the Mount. You will not find that theology in the New Testament. Jesus spent the time to answer their questions. And He spent the time to reprove and rebuke what they said, because they were distorting the truth of God. Some of the most scathing words ever found on this planet were uttered by the Man who said, ‘Permit the little children to come to Me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven.’ And the world is always ready to have the Jesus with the Roman nose, the light beard, the long hair, the Nordic features, and the milk-sop theology. It will always welcome this Jesus, but it will never stand for the Jesus who said, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into everlasting flames, prepared for the devil and his angels since the foundation of the age.’”[3] Walter Martin is making the point that some people tell us we should just be loving and we should just preach (or praise) Jesus. These types of people don’t want to offend anyone; they are men-pleasers, not God-pleasers (cf. 1 Sam 15:30; Gal. 1:10). They want to tickle people's ears, as the apostle Paul put it (2 Tim 4:3-4). They say, “Let's all get together and stay positive.” And Dr. Martin says that you will not find that teaching in the New Testament. Instead, what you find is that the apostles spoke in defense of the Christian faith, and they called out false teaching and the false teachers; and in so doing they were following the example of Jesus! In other words, when one of God's servants calls out a false teacher by name, they are not being unloving; they are doing exactly what Jesus did! And we are to be imitators of Him and follow His example; as Paul says, "Be imitators of God" (Eph. 5:1). In other words, be imitators of Jesus! He is our example and we should follow in His steps (cf. 1 Pet. 2:21).

And so, getting back to what Paul says in 1 Cor 11:1, he tells us to follow his example as he follows Christ. Thus, “naming names” is completely biblical because that's what both Jesus and the apostle Paul did, as I’ve noted. But there's actually several more instances in the New Testament of the apostle Paul calling out false teachers by name, and this is interesting. Because the apostle Paul actually called out another apostle by name and identified him as a false teacher! Can you believe that? What am I referring to? If you take a look at Galatians 2:11-14, what you will find is that the apostle Paul called out the apostle Peter by name, to his face, and said in effect: “You are not being true to the gospel of grace!” This is what Paul says in Gal 2:11-14, “but when Peter was come to Antioch,” this is Peter the apostle that Paul is talking about, “but when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face because he was to be blamed. For before that certain ones came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled [separated themselves] likewise with him, in so much that Barnabas also was carried away in their dissimulation [i.e. in their hypocrisy]. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, ‘if thou being a Jew livest after the manner of gentiles and not as do the Jews, why compellest the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?’” (Gal. 2:11-14). And so here, amazingly, the apostle Paul is essentially calling the apostle Peter a false teacher, or at least labeling him a hypocrite and not true to the gospel. Paul says to Peter that he is not being true to the gospel of grace but instead is practicing hypocrisy. So much so, in fact, that even Barnabas was led astray! And so Paul names Peter by name, and he names Barnabas by name (although Barnabas was not, in this case, necessarily a false teacher, but he was led astray). But my point is that here Paul once again “names names”! And so this is completely biblical. It is not inherently unkind. It is not inherently unloving. But it is inherently unpopular. In regards to it being unpopular, notice what Paul says about popularity in the same epistle. In the first chapter of Galatians, he writes this in Galatians 1:10 (after writing about the fact that some are preaching a false gospel), Paul says: “For do I now persuade men or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet please men, I should not be the servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10, KJV). And so yes, following Paul's example will be unpopular. Following Christ's example will be unpopular. Are you willing to be unpopular for the Lord? Are you willing “to go outside the camp, bearing His reproach” (Heb. 13:13). That is, “bearing the disgrace He bore” (Heb. 13:13, NIV). Or do you rather seek to be a man-pleaser? Let us seek, as the apostle Paul did, to be God-pleasers! "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow in His steps" (1 Peter 2:21).

Some people say that naming names is divisive, but that's actually not correct, at least according to the Bible. That’s just an excuse some people use in an attempt to justify their disobedience to the Lord, in that they're unwilling to call out false teachers by name. Because what we find in the Bible, in Romans 16:17 to be specific, is that it’s not those who call out false teachers by name who are the divisive ones, but actually it’s the false teachers who are being divisive! Paul makes this clear in Romans 16:17. And here again this is a command, or at least a plea of the apostle Paul; he says in verse 17, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” And so Paul is making it clear that any divisiveness (in regards to the “divisions and offenses,” to use Paul’s words), is to be blamed on the false teachers (cf. Gal. 2:11), not on those who call them out! 

Are there any other New Testament examples of Christians calling out false teachers by name? Actually yes, there are! There are several other examples besides that of the apostle Paul. Of course, Paul's example and his command to follow his example should be sufficient in terms of any justification that we need for “naming names” in the church today, but in addition to Paul there are other examples. Actually the apostle Peter, in his second epistle, says this in 2:1, “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily [secretly] shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Pet. 2:1, KJV). And the apostle Peter goes on to talk about these false teachers. Now my point is not to say that these false teachers are necessarily saved. That's another discussion, whether they are saved or not. Quite frankly, if they were not saved they nonetheless had an opportunity to be, because Peter says that they were even denying “the Lord that bought them” (2 Pet. 2:1). In other words, Christ shed His blood to save them, and therefore they had the opportunity to be saved. As D. L. Moody has said, “The elect are the ‘whosoever wills’ and the non-elect are the ‘whosoever wonts’.” And so if these false teachers were unsaved, it's not because they could not come but because they would not come (cf. Jn 5:40, 6:40). As Dr. Scudder often used to say, “There is no blood clot at the cross!” And as the hymn-writer put it: “There’s room at the cross for thee.” But that's not my point here. Rather, my point is to show that here again, we have an example of false teachers being called out by name. But someone might say, “But they're not called out by name in verse 1.” Quite right, but keep reading. Because in vv. 15-16 notice what Peter says. And by the way, this is the same context as v. 1; he's still talking about false teachers. And what does he say? He says this in verse 15, “Which have forsaken the right way and are gone astray following the way of….” who? “Balaam”! And not just any “Balaam,” but specifically “Balaam the son of Boser” (2 Pet. 2:15). This of course is a reference to the Old Testament “Balaam” who was rebuked by a donkey: a “dumb ass,” as the King James Version has it. And this account is found in the Old Testament book of Numbers chapters 22-24, and Numbers 31:16. And so this example in 2 Peter chapter 2 is another New Testament example of a false teacher being called out by name. 

What are some other examples? Are there any other examples in the New Testament of false teachers being called out by name? Yes, indeed! Turn in your Bible to 3 John 1, and we see another example. Here we find another example of a false teacher being called out by name. And in this case it's the apostle John who is calling out the false teacher by name. And what does he say? Look in chapter 1 verses 9 and 10. The apostle John says: “I wrote unto the church, but Diotrephes….” Let me stop right there for a moment and ask: does the apostle John, the apostle of love, name names? He obviously and most certainly does! Here John calls out a church leader named “Diotrephes” by name. John writes: “Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating [speaking] against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither does he himself receive the brethren, and forbideth them that would, and casteth them out of the church” (3 Jn. 1:9-10). And so here we find the apostle John, the apostle of love, naming names. He's calling out a false teacher by name; showing once again and very clearly, that it is not inherently unloving or unkind to name names! 

We find another example in Revelation chapter 2. And for those of us who believe that the apostle John penned The Book of Revelation, this is another example of “the apostle of love” calling out a false teacher by name. But regardless, even if it was not the apostle John who wrote it, obviously the Book of Revelation is inspired Scripture and has meaning and application for us today. This is especially true in light of the fact that the text I'm going to quote is specifically written to the “churches” (Rev. 1:11), specifically to the seven churches in Asia Minor and by extension to us today as well. Let’s take a look at Revelation 2:20. Here the apostle John is specifically addressing the church in Thyatira, and notice what be says: “Notwithstanding, I have a few things against thee because thou sufferest [you allow or put up with] that woman Jezebel….” Wait a minute, who? A woman named “Jezebel”! So here again the apostle John, the apostle of love, is calling out a false teacher by name; and in this case it is a woman named “Jezebel”. And notice here that the false teacher is a woman! Some Christians might say, “Oh, don't ever rebuke a woman. That would be especially unkind and unloving.” Really? Look at the text! Here “the apostle of love” is specifically calling out a woman by name! And John says: “I have a few things against you, church, because you're allowing, you're putting up with, this woman named Jezebel who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed unto idols” (Rev. 2:20). Unfortunately many churches today are like the church in Thyatira, in that they won't speak out against false teachers in the congregation. Their excuse is that they don't want to be seen as unloving or "divisive," but in so doing they are being men-pleasers, not God-pleasers (Gal. 1:10). In effect, they are silently "tolerating that woman Jezebel" (Rev. 2:20). This should not be! Related to this woman's name, I can anticipate someone saying: “But Jezebel is not her real name, it’s just a title connecting her to the Jezebel in the Old Testament. So John doesn't really name the actual woman.” But in response to this, several things should be noted. First of all, I’d say you don't know that, so that's an argument from silence. And secondly, even if that's true, her real name could still be Jezebel! In other words, the reference to “Jezebel” in Rev 2:20 could be a reference to both the Jezebel in the Old Testament and to a woman named Jezebel in the church in Thyatira; her actual name could still be Jezebel. So both could be true. The one does not preclude the other; they're not mutually exclusive. So even if that were the case, it still doesn't disprove my point that the apostle John is calling out this woman by name. And even if "Jezebel" isn't the real name of the woman in the New Testament, it's the real name of the woman in the Old Testament! So it still proves my point that the apostle John is calling out a false teacher by name. Whether it's the Jezebel in the Old Testament, and/or the Jezebel in the New Testament; it's obviously either one or the other or both. So it still proves my point: that the apostle John, the apostle of love, is calling out a false teacher by name. People can try to spin it however they want, but that's the fact of it. So once again, it becomes abundantly clear that it is not inherently unloving or unkind to call out false teachers (or a particular false teacher) by name. 

I could go on at length to discuss examples from the Old Testament, but I will simply mention them quickly for anyone who may want to do further study on this topic. Because what I want to show is that “naming names” or calling out false teachers by name is a consistent theme throughout the Scriptures. It is a consistent theme throughout the entire Word of God. To state it conversely, the Christian’s duty to “name names” does not merely rest on one Bible verse or on an isolated example or two, nor is it just the task or the responsibility of the apostles alone. But rather, as the apostle Paul says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect [complete, mature], thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim 3:16-17). Those who “have eyes to see and ears to hear” will find this theme throughout the Bible: that God's people are instructed to "name names," and do in fact "name names" (cf. Num. 16:25-33; 1 Sam. 15:10-28; 2 Sam. 12:7; 1 Kings 18:18; 2 Chron. 19:2, etc.). And this is an action that is entirely pleasing to the Lord. It's a characteristic of godliness, quite honestly, because this is what we find Jesus and His followers doing throughout the entire New Testament! But in regards to the Old Testament, here are some examples of Godly men who "named names". I already mentioned the example of Peter calling out Balaam by name. (Balaam is mentioned in both the Old Testament and New Testament.) Someone may object and say, “But Peter wrote about Balaam hundreds of years after Balaam died, so it's not the same.” Yes, but in the Old Testament it was Moses who opposed him (see Numbers chapters 22-24; 31:8, 31:16). And I can assure you that Balaam was quite alive at that time! Balaam was a false teacher, and in the Old Testament he is identified as such by name. I'll cite a handful of other examples: in 1 Kings 22:1-28 we have the example of Micaiah, a prophet of God, calling out the false prophet "Zedekiah" by name; and then there is the example of the prophet Jeremiah calling out several false prophets by name: in Jeremiah 28:1-17 he calls out a false prophet named "Hananiah"; in Jeremiah 29:21-23 he calls out two false prophets: "Ahab" and "Zedekiah"; and then in Jeremiah 29:24-32, Jeremiah calls out a false prophet named "Shemiah the Nehelamite". And then I'll cite one further example, and that is the example of Nehemiah, the layman (not a prophet nor an apostle!), from Nehemiah 6:10-14. This is the incident where Nehemiah calls out "Shemiah son of Delaiah" by name, and also a false prophetess (a woman!) named "Noadiah," as well as others. Nehemiah also openly rebukes a man named "Tobiah" and another named "Sanballat". And anyone who has read the book of Nehemiah is probably familiar with the account of it. So these are more examples, particularly from the Old Testament, where we find God's people “naming names”. So for those of us who want to be God-pleasers and not men-pleasers (“Mr. Milk-toast,” as J. Vernon McGee says), it's time to start calling out false teachers by name! And if your heart has been hard to this truth of Scripture, confess your sin and start walking in obedience to the Lord. He will bless you for it.

* * *

“It is not unloving to boldly name names. It is often the most loving thing one can do to protect believers from a life-threatening [spiritual] disease.” --Gregory Brown, “Approved Workers of God (2 Timothy 2:14-19),” bible.org.

ENDNOTES:

[1] Jay Adams, Essays on Biblical Preaching (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), p. 17. Note: See Essay 2, "Preaching to the Heart," p. 17.

[2] For more information see my blog post titled “Getting the Gospel Right, Pt. 4” (FGFS, July 18, 2023). See “Objection #5”.

[3] Walter Martin, YouTube: “Dr. Walter Martin – Kingdom of the Cults Part 1/7 – Introduction to the Cults” (timestamp: approx. 22:00 - 25:30 minutes).

J. Vernon McGee's Warning to America

In the early 1970s, Dr. J. Vernon McGee gave this prophetic warning to America that is more true today than ever before! In a nationwide Thru The Bible radio broadcast, McGee said this: "Socialism is creeping in today. Political parties are willing to sell the birthright of this nation in order to stay in power."[1] McGee went on to say: "My friend, our country is closer to socialism than ever before."[2]

May God help us!

References:

[1] J. Vernon McGee, Thru The Bible, commentary on 2 Kings 22:2 (print edition).

[2] McGee, Thru The Bible, commentary on Ecclesiastes 9:1-14 (radio broadcast). Note: This statement does not appear in the print edition; it is excerpted from the radio broadcast.