Where Timothy Miller Gets Repentance Wrong: A Free Grace Analysis

The impression that I get from reading probably hundreds of articles on the meaning of repentance, and what seems to bear itself out from my research, is that whenever theologians can make biblical repentance more unclear by tossing some good works into the mix and thereby “muddying the waters” of the clear gospel of grace (Acts 20:24), or the more "works-based" they can make it by adding in some type of human effort, the more appealing it seems to be to the natural inclinations and pride of the human heart (cf. Gal. 5:11). If good works can somehow be added in, the more appealing the message becomes to the proud heart of man and to his innate desire for self-approbation. In this way, “repentance” becomes something for which he can justly take credit, i.e. a work (Rom. 4:4). Thus the legalist strokes his ego and pride with the false notion that repentance is more than simply “a change of mind”; in his view, it must also include a change of lifestyle!

Getting Specific

Here is a case in point. There’s an article on the logos.com website by Timothy Miller titled, “Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Something Different?”[1] After reading the article, I can say that a more accurate title would be: “Is Repentance a Change of Mind or a Change of Lifestyle?” because that’s what Miller is really asking. And so the title is cleverly subtle in that it does not reveal the true beliefs of the author. This is not necessarily wrong in and of itself. The real issue, of course, is what is the author hinting at? And therein lies the problem, because what the author is hinting at is a view of repentance that is anything but biblical! Miller’s questioning of biblical repentance reminds me of the serpent's hiss to Eve in the garden of Eden, when he very cunningly cast doubt on God's Word with the question: “Did God really say…?” (Gen. 3:1). May we not be deceived! The apostle Paul says, “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another Spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him” (2 Cor. 11: 3-4, KJV, emphasis added). Paul goes on to remind us that “Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, and his ministers as servants of righteousness” (2 Cor. 11:14-15). Lewis Sperry Chafer has well said: “Satan’s life-purpose is to be ‘like the Most High’ (Isa. 14:14), and he appears ‘as an angel of light,’ and his ministers ‘as the ministers of righteousness’ (2 Cor. 11:13-15). His ministers, being ministers of righteousness, preach a gospel of reformation and salvation by human character, rather than salvation by grace alone, unrelated to any human virtue.”[2] That this is indeed Miller’s view of repentance becomes more clear as he explains it further in his article.

Philo on Repentance

While Miller admits that repentance is a “change of mind,” what is troubling (cf. Gal. 1:7, KJV) is that he redefines it to mean “a change of lifestyle”. Miller contends that this is the true meaning of the Greek word metanoia, the word translated “repentance” in the New Testament. But it's obvious that Miller has allowed his theological tail to wag the hermeneutical dog (cf. Phil. 3:2; 2 Cor. 11:13). Just to give one example, Miller quotes a Jewish mystic named Philo as an authority on biblical repentance! Does Miller preach from the writings of Philo on Sunday morning? I hope not. Yet he appeals to Philo as an authority on biblical repentance! The problem is that Philo’s definition of repentance is works-based! Because even according to Miller, Philo defines metanoia as “a sinless walk [that] must replace the former sinning.” This is metanoia (repentance) according to Philo; that is how he defines repentance! According to Philo it's “a sinless walk” that must replace the former sinning! So right there, that clearly is works, is it not? No doubt about it. It’s clearly works! If Miller is saying that's the definition of repentance (which he is), and if he’s saying that repentance is required for salvation (which he is), then what he’s essentially saying is that “a sinless walk” is required for salvation. That's work-salvation! But obviously Miller isn’t going to blatantly come out and say: “I believe in work-salvation.” (A wolf doesn’t always look like a wolf! See Matthew 7:15.) Miller isn't going to say that because that's obviously NOT what the Bible teaches. That's my point. If he can say it some other way and subtly insert works into salvation, that's what he’s going to do. And that's what he does. Because by saying that repentance means “a sinless walk,” he's in essence redefining faith as a work. If repentance is part of faith (and we agree that it is) and if repentance is therefore required for salvation and you're defining it by saying it means “a sinless walk,” then you're essentially saying that a person must have a sinless walk in order to be saved. That's works-salvation! And the unfortunate part about it is that most people probably won't make that connection. They probably won't think through it logically the way that I just did. They will simply take Miller's word for it without critically evaluating it or thinking too deeply about it. They might reason to themselves by thinking: “That’s what Dr. Miller says, and he’s a published author and he teaches at a Bible cemetery – I mean seminary, and his article is on the logos.com website ... so it must be true! ... I guess ‘repentance’ must mean what Philo says: ‘a sinless walk’. I better clean up my life in order to get saved, or at least to prove I'm saved! There’s no such thing as a free lunch, right?” Au contraire! In regards to Miller’s view of repentance, red warning lights should be flashing in your brain. The Bible says that Eternal Life is a free gift – no strings attached! (See John 3:16, 4:10; Rom. 3:24, 6:23, etc.) In other words, the problem with Miller’s view of repentance is that it's in reality works-salvation! But it’s very subtle (as the devil often is: 2 Cor 11:3-4, 13-14; Gal. 1:6-9). Because it's covered with a veneer of orthodoxy, or at least a veneer of religiosity.

Bauer's Lexicon on Metanoia

To cite another example besides Philo, Miller quotes Bauer’s Lexicon as if Bauer agrees that biblical repentance is a work! All because Bauer says that metanoia (repentance) is “primarily a change of mind” and then he says that it focuses on “the need of change in view of responsibility to deity”.[3] But Miller is reading too much of his preconceived theological viewpoint into those words, because a “need for change” is not necessarily outward change as Miller suggests. In light of the fact that Bauer initially said that metanoia is “primarily a change of mind,” it is perfectly consistent and appropriate to interpret “the need for change” to be an internal change. The point I’m making is that Bauer doesn’t say “a change of lifestyle” as Miller wants us to believe. Rather, the “change in view of responsibility to deity” (to quote Bauer) is a change of mind. This becomes all the more apparent in view of the fact that Bauer includes Hebrews 12:17 in the list of Bible verses that he cites under his definition of metanoia. Although Hebrews 12:17 is not in regards to eternal salvation, Bauer nonetheless still includes it in the same gloss definition of metanoia alongside other Bible verses that have a salvation context! This highlights the fact that the definition of metanoia is the same in both contexts. (Of course, it is still true that the context of each verse must be considered individually in order to determine the object of the repentance, i.e. what the "change of mind" is about.) In regards to Hebrews 12:17, even Wayne Grudem, the Reformed theologian, has said that in Hebrews 12:17, metanoia is “simply a change of mind”![4] So Miller’s argument trying to use Bauer’s Lexicon to show that repentance is a change of lifestyle is self-refuting and unbiblical. 

In regards to misrepresenting Bauer’s Lexicon on the meaning of repentance, I’ve noticed that this is a common tactic among Calvinists and those who promote “Lordship Salvation”. For example, Wayne Gruden misrepresented Bauer’s Lexicon on the meaning of repentance in his book “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (for more information see my article titled “Free Grace Theology: 6 Ways Grudem Misrepresents Biblical Repentance”), and Bill Mounce misrepresented Bauer’s Lexicon on the meaning of repentance in his book Greek For the Rest of Us (for more information see my article titled “The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians”). And now Timothy Miller is following in their footsteps! This is a tragic example of “the blind leading the blind” (cf. Matthew 15:14). Miller probably realizes it's the best play they have in order to try to manufacture support for their position (because Bauer is considered one of, if not the authority on the subject). But the problem for Miller is that Bauer’s definition of New Testament repentance doesn't support the “Lordship” view of it. Since Lordship Salvationists don't have a factual argument or support for their (unbiblical) view of repentance, they twist the facts in an attempt to bolster their case.

Louw and Nida's Lexicon on Metanoeō and Metanoia:

Miller also appeals to the Louw & Nida theological dictionary of semantic domains in his attempt to prove that metanoia is behavior change. This simply proves the point I made at the beginning of the article, when I said that in my research what I've found is that if theologians can somehow adds in works to the meaning of repentance (and thus also into the gospel message), more often than not they will do so. This is the natural inclination and tendency of the human heart, but it is antithetical to the gospel of grace (see Prov. 14:12; Micah 6:6-7; Jer. 17:9; Jn. 6:28-29; Eph. 2:8-9; Phil. 3:9; Col. 2:23; Titus 3:5). Works-righteousness is the way of Cain, and is said to be cursed by God (see Gen. 4:3-5; Jer. 17:5; Jude 11). Yet Lordship Salvationists remained undaunted in their attempt to define repentance as a work! What I've noticed is that Lordship Salvationists love to quote the Louw & Nida lexicon in regards to the meaning of repentance, because it seems to offer some credibility to their works-based view of it. For example, in 2016 Wayne Grudem published his book "Free Grace" Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel, and in his chapter on repentance titled "No Call to Repent of Sins," he appeals to the Louw & Nida lexicon attempting to prove that metanoia signifies behavior change. I specifically responded to Grudem's view in Appendix 2 of my article "The Meaning of Repentance: Quotes from the Ancients, Lexicons, and Theologians". Since Miller's position is essentially the same as Grudem's, I will reproduce my response to Grudem below. Here is my analysis of Louw & Nida's lexicon in regards to the meaning of metanoeō and metanoia:

Wayne Grudem cites Louw and Nida’s lexicon as disagreeing with the traditional Free Grace “change of mind” view of repentance.[5] But Grudem leaves out some important information. It will be helpful to take a closer look. In the Louw and Nida lexicon, the words metanoeō and metanoia are classified in Semantic Domain 41.50 – 41.54, under the heading “Change Behavior”. The entry for metanoeō and metanoia says: “to change one’s way of life as the result of a complete change of thought and attitude with regard to sin and righteousness — ‘to repent, to change one’s way, repentance.’”[6] The same lexical entry goes on to say, “the emphasis in metanoeō and metanoia seems to be more specifically the total change, both in thought and behavior, with respect to how one should both think and act. Whether the focus is upon attitude or behavior varies somewhat in different contexts. Compare, for example, Lk 3.8, He 6.1, and Ac 26.20.”[7] But in a footnote even the Louw and Nida lexicon admits: “it would be possible to classify metanoeō and metanoia in Domain 30, Think”.[8] This admission by Louw and Nida is revealing in that it appears to be at odds with the definition they assign to metanoeō and metanoia, which clearly emphasizes a change of behavior. The fact that Louw and Nida chose not to classify metanoeō and metanoia in “Domain 30, Think” in spite of their admission that “it would be possible” to do so, clearly shows a theological bias on the part of the lexicographers. Charles Bing affirms that “[in] the original language…repentance was an inner change. Any addition of outward conduct was imported by theological bias.”[9] Another example of theological bias in the Louw and Nida lexicon is that it lists the words noeō (think), katanoeō (think, consider), and dianoia (way of thinking, disposition, manner of thought, attitude) in Semantic Domain 30, “Think” (see vol. 1, pp. 349-350), while metanoeō and metanoia are listed in Semantic Domain 42, “Change Behavior” (see vol. 1, p. 510)! Why the discrepancy? According to the New Testament evidence, it would be more accurate to say that repentance results in a change of behavior, rather than to say that repentance includes a change of behavior (see Matt. 3:8; Lk. 3:8; Acts 26:20). Louw and Nida’s lexicon is confusing the fruit of repentance (a change of behavior) with repentance itself (a change of mind). A third example of theological bias related to Louw and Nida’s definition of metanoeō and metanoia is seen in their definition of the related word ametanoētos (meaning “unrepentant”). The apostle Paul uses this word in Romans 2:5 when he says, “but because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart (ametanoēton kardian) you are storing up wrath for yourselves on the day of wrath and righteous judgment of God”. In Romans 2:5 the apostle Paul clearly makes repentance a “heart” issue. But Louw and Nida need to make repentance mean more than this. According to their definition, repentance (or the lack of it) also entails a person’s “behavior, with respect to how one should…act.”[10] Thus, in regards to the word “unrepentant” in Romans 2:5, Louw and Nida attempt to redefine it as being something more than a “heart” issue. Notice what they say: “‘but you have a hard and unrepentant heart’ Ro 2.5. In a number of languages it is difficult to speak of ‘a hard and unrepentant heart.’ A more satisfactory equivalent of this expression in Ro. 2.5 may be ‘but you are stubborn and refuse to repent’ or ‘…refuse to turn to God.’”[11] Amazingly, Louw and Nida’s lexicon eliminates the word “heart” from their definition of the word “unrepentant”! Thus they can more easily focus on outward actions instead of on a change of heart. Several things can be said in conclusion. It needs to be emphasized that language tools such as Louw & Nida’s lexicon are helpful, but they are not inspired. Nor are they without bias. As one clergyman has correctly pointed out in regards to the popular lexicons of the NT, “In examining these and other writers of the same class, you will need to distinguish between what they say as Lexicographers, and what they often absurdly blend with it as Divines.”[12] In regards to the “Semantic Domain” of metanoeō and metanoia in the New Testament (and especially in light of Louw and Nida’s admission that “it would be possible to classify metanoeō and metanoia in Domain 30, Think”), G. Michael Cocoris well summarizes the New Testament evidence for understanding repentance to mean “a change of mind”. Cocoris writes: “As can be demonstrated, in the New Testament the words ‘repent’ and ‘repentance’ mean ‘a change of mind.’ Many passages contain indications in the context that repentance is a change of mind. These include Matthew 3:2 (cf. ‘do not think’ in verse 9 and ‘fruit worthy of repentance’ in verse 8)…Acts 8:22 (cf. ‘thought’ in verse 20, ‘heart’ in verse 21 and ‘the thought of your heart’ in verse 22), Acts 17:30 (cf. ‘not think’ in verse 29 and ‘ignorance’ in verse 30), Acts 26:20 (cf. ‘repent’ verses ‘do works befitting repentance’), 2 Tim. 2:25 (cf. ‘know’ in verse 25 and ‘come to their senses’ in verse 26), Revelation 2:25 (cf. ‘repent’ between ‘remember’ and ‘do’).”[13] More examples could be cited from the New Testament which clearly describe repentance as an inward change of mind or heart, viz. “But what do you think?” (Matt. 21:28, cf. “believe” in v. 32); “Think ye…?” (Lk. 13:2, cf. “repent” in vv. 4, 5); “Or do you suppose…?” (Lk. 13:4, cf. “repent” in vv. 4, 5); “Finally he came to his senses” (Lk. 15:17, cf. “repent” and “repentance” in the preceding context). This is a brief survey of the “semantic domain” of New Testament repentance (metanoia), and it clearly signifies an internal change of mind. This “change of mind” is properly distinguished from a change of behavior. After reviewing every use of the words “repent” and “repentance” in the New Testament, B. H. Carroll similarly concludes: “Therefore, we may say that metanoeo always means ‘to think back, to change the mind,’ while the noun, metanoia, always means afterthought, as opposed to forethought, change of mind. We may, therefore, give as the one invariable definition of New Testament repentance that it is a change of mind, from which it is evident that its domain is limited. It is necessarily internal, not external.”[14] Louis Berkhof likewise affirms: “According to Scripture repentance is wholly an inward act, and should not be confounded with the change of life that proceeds from it. Confession of sin and reparation of wrongs are fruits of repentance.”[15] Thus it becomes evident that the Louw and Nida lexicon has confounded and comingled biblical repentance (a change of mind) with the fruit of repentance (a change of behavior), and has “imported by theological bias” this additional meaning into the words metanoeō and metanoia, when in fact their true meaning according to Scripture is “wholly...inward”[16] and “necessarily internal, not external.”[17]

Grace vs. Works

Is salvation “by grace alone” or not? If you are relying on your works or your lifestyle to get saved or to prove you're saved, then you're NOT trusting in Christ alone! You're looking at yourself and thinking, “Well, I guess I have to live a certain way in order to get saved or prove I'm saved.” That's subtly adding works into the whole equation of salvation, when the Bible instead clearly teaches: Faith + Nothing = Salvation![18] Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. But if a person must also have “a sinless walk” (as Philo says), then salvation would not be by faith alone. Because having or maintaining “a sinless walk” is works! Having or requiring a certain type of lifestyle before or after salvation – that's not faith alone, that's works! That's NOT how a person is saved. The Bible clearly says: “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to God's mercy He saved us” (Titus 3:5). In other words, salvation is NOT by having “a sinless walk”. That's works-righteousness, and that’s NOT how a person is saved. Why do I say that? Because first of all, no one on this side of heaven can truly have “a sinless walk”. So if that's what is required for salvation, then no one (including you!) would ever be saved because “there is none righteous, no not one” (Rom. 3:10). We all “fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Ecclesiastes says there's not a just man living who never sins (Eccl. 7:20). Solomon said that. The wisest man in the world said that. The Bible says that. So if a theologian is quoting Philo and saying that repentance in the Bible means “a sinless walk” (and if repentance is required for salvation), then no one would ever get saved! Apparently Mr. Miller hasn't thoroughly evaluated his view of repentance in light of God’s Word, because if he truly believes in salvation by faith alone in Christ alone, he would never say that sort of thing. Or maybe he just hasn't “connected all the dots” yet. Or maybe he actually does believe in works-salvation! But of course he's not going to outright admit that, because that's obviously unbiblical. So either he hasn't thought through his view of repentance in light of the clear teaching of God's Word on how a person is saved, or else he's subtly trying to deceive people, right? He’s either saying it ignorantly or intentionally, right? So either way it's a problem. And that's why I'm writing this Free Grace response, because I want to warn people and I want people to think more about it than simply swallowing what Miller says “hook, line, and sinker”. As Christians, we need to think critically and analyze these teachings in light of God’s Word (in distinction to Philo) because, as the Apostle Paul says: “Examine everything [how?] carefully, hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). So we need to think very carefully and critically about what is being taught. That's why I'm examining Timothy Miller’s article on repentance and why I’m writing this response, because according to the Bible, repentance is NOT “a sinless walk”! It might be repentance according to Philo, but not according to the Bible. If Miller wants to quote Philo that's fine, but don't go and say it's biblical repentance because it's not. I hope he’s not intentionally trying to deceive people. But the problem is that whether it’s intentional or not, unfortunately either way he’s still deceiving people. The word metanoia in the Greek means to have “a change of mind” (cf. Heb. 12:17). If you want to define that as “a change of heart” that's fine; the point is: it's an internal change, not an external change. Whereas “a sinless walk” is an external change; that's not biblical repentance. So that's one problem with Miller’s article and with his view of repentance.

Is Salvation By Faith Alone or Something Different?

Another problem with Miller’s view of repentance is that it’s somewhat duplicitous, because on the one hand he agrees that repentance is a change of mind but then he basically says, “Well, it's actually more than that.” And that's where he subtly adds in works to the meaning of repentance. What Miller really believes is that, in his view, repentance is a change of behavior. But as a Protestant, Miller isn’t going to blatantly advocate a faith plus works gospel because that's too obvious. And maybe he doesn’t even believe that. Yet as I said, whether it’s intentional or not, the problem is that he's in effect adding in works to “salvation by faith alone”. (I’m in agreement with Daniel Wallace when he says that in the Gospel of Luke, and by implication in the other Gospels as well, repentance is included in faith.[19] In other words, repentance and faith are like two sides of the same coin.) And by adding works to faith alone, the gospel is ruined! In regards to this and specifically in the context of the meaning of repentance, Erasmus has well said: “And yet erring men both pious and erudite, prefer rather to twist [things], indeed they falsely accuse, as these are now the customs and times [in which we live], [they command] penance by which the Gospel has been ruined.”[20] Notice that Eramus said "penance". (The Latin word can be translated as either "penance" or repentance," depending on the context.) Some people may think that Miller is not advocating penance. Maybe not explicitly, but as ChatGPT correctly points out (and yes I’m quoting artificial intelligence):

“When good works are added as a condition for salvation—whether explicitly (e.g., ‘You must perform good deeds to be saved’) or implicitly (e.g., ‘Repentance must involve a change in behavior to be genuine’)—it shifts the gospel’s focus from God’s grace to human effort. This addition mirrors the concept of penance by requiring external actions or changes to secure salvation. Is interpreting repentance as a change of behavior a form of penance? Yes, interpreting repentance as a change of behavior can function as a form of penance if the change of behavior is seen as necessary to obtain or prove salvation. The Greek word for repentance, metanoia, means a ‘change of mind,’ not a change of actions. When repentance is redefined as turning from sin [i.e. in the sense of a change of lifestyle] or altering one’s lifestyle, it introduces a performance-based element into the gospel. This aligns with the idea of penance because it implies that salvation requires visible acts of obedience or reform, rather than simple faith in Christ. By conflating repentance with behavioral change, the gospel risks being distorted into a system where salvation is earned or confirmed by works, rather than received as a free gift through faith alone [with no strings attached]. This shift undermines the biblical teaching that justification is by faith apart from works (Romans 3:28).” 

This is important to understand because what Miller is saying is that repentance is not simply a change of mind; he's saying there's more! In effect, Miller is throwing something back on the sinner to do for salvation, i.e. change his (or her) lifestyle. And thus Miller is very subtly (and possibly inadvertently) adding in works to the meaning of repentance: works such as maintaining “a sinless walk” for example. That's repentance according to Philo, the Jewish mystic. And apparently that is repentance according to Timothy Miller. But that is definitely NOT repentance (metanoia) according to the Bible! And so on the one hand, Miller is saying that a change of lifestyle is part of repentance, but then on the other hand he's saying repentance leads to a changed life. So he's trying to have it both ways. And it’s really nonsensical actually, because if that’s true then the cause is the same as the effect. The root is the same as the fruit. And the means is also the end. That might work in New Age, Krishna, or Transcendental Meditation, or even in Buddhism, but that’s definitely NOT biblical repentance! In other words, using Miller’s definition of repentance: it’s a change of behavior that leads to a change of behavior? It’s a tautology! It’s a nonsensical redundancy because how can a changed life lead to something that it already is? And if repentance is a change of life, then the apostles’ statements about repentance and the fruit of repentance (cf. Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20) are tautology indeed! I mean, if you're saying repentance is “a sinless walk” that leads to “a sinless walk”: that makes no sense! That's a tautology. That would be like saying, “I'm going to fight this battle in order to win, but I've already won. There’s no need to fight the battle to get the victory if you already have the victory, right? But essentially that's what Miller is saying! He's saying that repentance is a changed life that leads to a changed life. Does that sound confusing? It is confusing! It just doesn't add up. It doesn't make sense. Because first of all it's not biblically accurate, and secondly it's not logically coherent: he's basically saying that the means is the end. Basic logic would say that the means leads to the end, right? “The way of the cross leads home.” The path is not the home, but it leads to the home. (Miller no doubt would agree with this, but that only highlights the inconsistency and absurdity of his view of repentance. Because when his view of repentance is analyzed logically, what he’s actually saying is that a change of life leads to a change of life, as I explained above.) According to Miller’s view of repentance, the means IS the end. The closest thing I can think of to where I've heard anything close to that is a Buddist proverb that says: “The destination is the journey.” But that's a Buddhist proverb! But logically that's exactly what Miller is saying in terms of repentance! Because he's basically saying that repentance is a changed lifestyle (that's the means of salvation according to Miller's definition), and then it leads to a changed lifestyle (that’s the result of salvation or the result repentance). So he's saying the means is the same as the end. That's Buddhism ladies and gentlemen! That's NOT biblical Christianity! And that's a big problem with Miller’s theological interpretation of repentance, because not only is it essentially works-righteousness or works-salvation, but furthermore it is logically absurd and self-refuting. Miller has unwittingly adopted the philosophy of Buddhism and has applied it to biblical (or not so biblical) Christianity and specifically to the doctrine of repentance! I want to reiterate that I'm not saying Miller did this intentionally; he may have just not completely thought through the logical implications of his beliefs.

Repentance and the Fruit of Repentance

The point I'm making is that Miller’s view of supposedly biblical repentance has BIG problems. Because just to hone in on what I said earlier, Miller affirms that Paul tells the Gentiles to demonstrate their repentance by their deeds (Acts 26:20). So right there Miller is essentially admitting that repentance is different from the change of lifestyle that follows, right? That's the plain meaning of the verse. That's the plain meaning of what Paul says in Acts 26:20. (And Paul was always “setting forth the truth plainly,” 2 Cor. 4:2, NIV). But according to Miller, Paul would have to be equating repentance with what follows! In other words, Miller is saying that repentance is the changed life, the “sinless walk” (at least according to Philo), the good deeds. But the apostle Paul is saying no, those things are a result of repentance, not repentance itself. The changed life, the “sinless walk,” the good deeds – that is the fruit of repentance, not the root itself (see Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8; Acts 26:20). Even John Calvin saw a distinction between repentance and the fruit which should follow, and he affirmed that it is very important to maintain this distinction in order to keep the gospel from being corrupted. Notice what Calvin says in his commentary on Matthew 3:8 and Luke 3:8: “Yield therefore fruits worthy of repentance….It ought to be observed, that good works (Tit. iii. 8) are here called fruits of repentance: for repentance is an inward matter, which has its seat in the heart and soul, but afterwards yields its fruits in a change of life. But as the whole of this part of doctrine has been grievously corrupted by Popery [i.e. Roman Catholicism], we must attend to this distinction, that repentance is an inward renewal of the man, which manifests itself in the outward life, as a tree produces its fruit.”[21] These are basic distictions that Miller completely misses! Rather than maintaining the distinction between repentance and the fruit which should follow, he is instead trying to put the fruit into the root! That’s backwards! It’s not only backwards but it's nonsensical because in essence what Miller is saying (when logically analyzed) is that repentance is the same as the fruit of repentance! That is incorrect, as even John Calvin pointed out. Sadly, Miller's view of repentance has more in common with Buddhist philosophy and the Roman Catholic idea of penance than it does with biblical Christianity. The fact of the matter is (and it should be plainly obvious) that repentance and the fruit of repentance are two different things. Whereas Miller is conflating them together; he's confusing the root with the fruit and not maintaining the biblical distinction between them (cf. 2 Tim. 2:15). Repentance (a change of mind) is the root, and good works (a change of life, i.e. good deeds) are the fruit. In other words, the fruit of repentance is distinct from repentance itself. But Miller doesn't recognize that biblical distinction; or if he does, he is not consistent in maintaining it. Rather, Miller argues that repentance is more than simply a change of mind. According to Philo whom he quotes approvingly, repentance is “a sinless walk”. Miller seems to walk that back somewhat (no pun intended) in the conclusion of his article, when he says that an integral part of repentance is “a revolutionized life”: thus maybe not “sinless,” just “revolutionized” – whatever that means! (But didn't Ghandi have “a revolutionized life”? And he wasn't even a Christian!) By saying that repentance includes “a revolutionized life,” Miller is once again saying that repentance is “both/and”: both a change of mind and a change of lifestyle. But in so doing he is confusing the means with the end, and the root with the fruit. How much simpler and clearer it is to say that repentance (metanoia) according to the Bible is simply a change of mind or heart! In other words, it's an internal change. The external change is the fruit that should follow when there is true repentance (Eph. 2:8-10, KJV). But let's keep it clear that repentance is the root, and the changed life is the fruit. This distinction needs to be stressed, and even Louis Berkhof, the Reformed theologian, has said: “According to Scripture repentance is wholly an inward act, and should not be confounded with the change of life that proceeds from it.”[22]

ENDNOTES:

[1] Timothy Miller, “Is Repentance a Change of Mind or Something Different?” (January 27, 2023), www.logos.com.

[2] Lewis Sperry Chafer, He That Is Spiritual (1918 Edition), p. 101.

[3] Walter Bauer, Frederick William Danker, Editor, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), Third Edition (BDAG), p. 640.

[4] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), p. 799. Commenting on the Greek word metanoia and the fact that it is not always used in a salvation context, Grudem writes: “First, we must realize that ‘repentance’ (Gk. metanoia) does not need to refer to inward heart repentance unto salvation. For example, Hebrews 12:17 uses this word to speak of a change of mind that Esau sought concerning the sale of his birthright, and refers to it as ‘repentance’ (metanoia). This would not have been a repentance for salvation, but simply a change of mind and an undoing of the transaction regarding his birthright.” (Ibid., p. 799.) Also see the marginal note on Hebrews 12:17 in the 1611 King James Bible. The marginal note on the phrase “place of repentance” says: “Or, way to change his mind”.)

[5] Wayne Grudem, “Free Grace” Theology: 5 Ways It Diminishes the Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway Publishers, 2016), p. 63.

[6] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), 2 vols., vol. 1, p. 510.

[7] Ibid., vol. 1, p. 510.

[8] Ibid., vol. 1, p. 510, footnote 5.

[9] Charlie Bing, “Quotes on Repentance as a Change of Mind, Part 1” (GraceNotes, Number 92), www.gracelife.org.

[10] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2 vols., vol. 1, p. 510.

[11] Ibid., vol. 1, p. 511, ellipsis in original.

[12] John Walker, Essays and Correspondence, Chiefly on Scriptural Subjects, Edited by William Burton (London: 1838), vol. 1, p. 132.

[13] G. Michael Cocoris, Repentance: The Most Misunderstood Word in the Bible (Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2010), p. 84. Commenting on Acts 17:30, Charles Bing makes a similar point when he says, “In this passage, the juxtaposition of ‘repent’ with ‘we ought not to think’ (v. 29) and ‘ignorance’ (v. 30) denotes the internal nature of repentance rather than the Lordship characterization of turning from sins.” (Bing, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response, 2nd GraceLife Edition [Xulon Press, 2010], p. 78.)

[14] B. H. Carroll, The Four Gospels (Volume 1), in An Interpretation of the English Bible, Edited by J. B. Cranfill (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1916), p. 185.

[15] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), p. 487. Note: G. Michael Cocoris and Charles Bing both quote this statement by Berkhof. See G. Michael Cocoris, Evangelism: A Biblical Approach (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), p. 68; Cocoris, Repentance: The Most Misunderstood Word in the Bible (Milwaukee: 2010), p. 17; Charles Bing, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response (Xulon Press: 2010), pp. 69, 82.

[16] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), p. 487.

[17] B. H. Carroll, The Four Gospels (Volume 1), in An Interpretation of the English Bible, Edited by J. B. Cranfill (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1916), p. 185.

[18] See the excellent article by J. Vernon McGee titled “Faith + 0 = Salvation” (Blue Letter Bible).

[19] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), p. 289.

[20] Desiderius Erasmus, Annotations on the New Testament (1527), Matthew 3:2. Note on Poenitentiam agite and Metanoeite, pp. 17-18.

[21] John Calvin, translated by Rev. William Pringle, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Edinburgh: 1845), vol. 1, pp. 189-190, ellipsis added, comment on Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8.

[22] For more information see my blog post titled "Louis Berkhof on Biblical Repentance" (FGFS, May 25, 2020).

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 there is an interesting summary of Bible translation in the Preface, and I found it quite inspiring actually. It 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 the Preface. 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 awkward, or awkwardly worded. 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 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).