How To Decipher the Groundless Gospel

The glorious gospel is clear, not confusing. In contrast to this, the groundless gospel of the non-buried and never-seen savior is unclear and quite confusing! Consider for a moment that if the historical facts of Christ's burial and resurrection appearances are not absolutely essential for someone to know about and believe in order to go to heaven, then their presence in the gospel message simply confuses the issues. Groundless gospel advocates admit to preaching the maximum consisting at least of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, but require something less than this to be believed. For example, Tom Stegall acknowledges that "it is quite common for Christians to reference 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 and then state that the gospel is the message that 'Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again.' ... since the burial happens to fall in-between these two pillars [i.e. Christ's death and resurrection], it gets included each time this passage is quoted....I myself routinely quote it this way".¹ Notice here that although Stegall only claims to be preaching "the gospel," in reality he believes he's preaching more than the gospel! This simply highlights the incongruity inherent in the groundless gospel because Stegall is including supposedly non-saving truth (i.e. Christ's burial) in his saving message. But Dennis Rokser correctly and somewhat incongruently points out "that THERE IS NO INCONGRUITY BETWEEN THE GOSPEL that was PREACHED by Paul and THE GOSPEL which was BELIEVED by the Corinthians! There was no MAXIMUM preached and MINIMUM believed!"² Stegall's new mini-gospel is truly an issue of incongruity that requires either semantic gymnastics or a lack of personal integrity to maintain.
     

Obviously the apostle Paul is not guilty of confusing the gospel message. In his first letter to the Corinthian Christians, Paul writes: "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,—and not with clever speech, so that the cross of Christ would not become useless (1 Cor. 1:17, NET, italics added). In his second letter to the Corinthians Paul affirms that "we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God" (2 Cor. 4:2, NIV, italics added). If Paul is not guilty of distorting and confusing the issues involved in eternal salvation, who is guilty of confusing the gospel message? In answer to this question, consider how a pro-groundless pastor named Billy might witness to a Gnostic named Mike. Interestingly enough, Pastor Billy is the same Billy whom Stegall describes in his book as the young boy who doubted that Jesus was buried in a tomb for three days and that He appeared to His disciples after His resurrection.³ However, Billy is not a seven-year-old boy anymore. He went on to attend the University of Minnesota Duluth and is now pastor of a small fundamentalist church.

Gnostic Mike: I was just reading about the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 and had some questions. I was wondering if you could help me out?

Pastor Billy: I'm sure I can help. What are your questions?

Gnostic Mike: It seems clear that Paul delivers his gospel in a four part formula, right?

Pastor Billy: Well, there are four parts but only two are really the gospel and essential to believe.

Gnostic Mike: Really? I'm glad you're explaining this to me because I didn't get that from reading the text. Paul uses the same grammatical structure to introduce each of the four verbs in verses 3b-5.

Pastor Billy: Yes of course, but Christ's burial and post-resurrection appearances are only proofs, you don't really have to believe them.

Gnostic Mike: I can see how they might be proofs of his death and resurrection, but why don't you have to believe them? After all, isn't Christ's resurrection a proof that He is God (cf. Acts 17:31; Rom. 1:4)? You still have to believe in Christ's resurrection, right?

Pastor Billy: Yes of course. But Christ's burial and post-resurrection appearances are not saving events.

Gnostic Mike: Really? Didn't Paul include them in the words of salvation in his preaching in Acts 13:26-41? I understand that only Christ's death paid the full penalty for sin, but Christ's burial and appearances are included in the gospel. Isn't the gospel "the power of God unto salvation" (Rom. 1:16)?

Pastor Billy: Well you see, the double occurrence of the phrase "according to the Scriptures" in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 marks out the essentials of the gospel.

Gnostic Mike: Are you saying that Christ's burial and appearances aren't according to the Scriptures? 

Pastor Billy: Ummm. 

Gnostic Mike: And according to the Scriptures wasn't Christ's resurrection from the dead a resurrection from the grave (Isa. 53:9-10; Acts 13:29-30; 1 Cor. 15:4)? 

Pastor Billy: Hmmm. It sounds like you're adding to the gospel.

Gnostic Mike: Wouldn't Paul be guilty of garbling the gospel by including non-saving truths in the saving message?

Pastor Billy: Actually, we just leave them out when we share the gospel so that clears things up.

Gnostic Mike: But Paul makes it clear that Christ's burial and appearances are included in the content of his gospel.

Pastor Billy: It takes much time and study to really understand the gospel message.

Gnostic Mike: I'm trying to understand. You're saying the gospel declares that Christ died for our sins—what about the phrase "according to the Scriptures," does a person have to believe that?

Pastor Billy: Well that's a proof too.

Gnostic Mike: So I don't have to believe it?

Pastor Billy: You have to believe what it proves.

Gnostic Mike: This is kind of confusing.

Pastor Billy: I'm glad I'm here to explain it to you.

Gnostic Mike: So I have to believe that Christ died for my sins but I don't have to believe that it was "according to the Scriptures" because that's just a proof. What if I believe Christ is a spirit?

Pastor Billy: Oh no, you have to believe Christ is human.

Gnostic Mike: Don't the facts of Christ's burial and appearances highlight His humanity? I mean, who ever heard of a spirit being buried?

Pastor Billy: Yes of course, but you don't have to believe them, you just have to believe Christ is human.

Gnostic Mike: But how will I believe Christ is human if I don't believe His body was buried or that He appeared to anyone?

Pastor Billy: Well, His death sets forth His humanity.

Gnostic Mike: But I'm a Gnostic. I believe Christ's death was only spiritual, not physical. And in the resurrection Christ's spirit was raised up, not His body. Immortality is conceived as escape from the body. I don't get it, you want me to believe Christ is human but you have removed His burial and resurrection appearances from the gospel. It doesn't make sense.

Pastor Billy: Here, I have some sermon tapes for you, why don't you listen to these.

Gnostic Mike: Thanks. I'm glad you're here to walk me through this! Otherwise I'd never understand all these complexities of the gospel. So let me see if I got it so far. I have to believe that Christ died for my sins, I don't have to believe the phrase "according to the Scriptures" because it's just a proof—although I can't believe it was according to some other holy book. And I don't have to believe that Christ was buried, but I have to believe He is human. How am I doing so far?

Pastor Billy: I think you're getting it.

Gnostic Mike: I hope I can remember all this! So the next part of the gospel I have to believe is that Christ was raised on the third day, right?

Pastor Billy: Well, we only require that you believe Christ rose from the dead.

Gnostic Mike: So if I believe Christ rose from the grave that's enough?

Pastor Billy: Oh no, you don't need to believe that Christ rose from the grave because that adds in His burial, you only need to believe that He rose from the dead.

Gnostic Mike: So all those people who believe Christ rose from the grave are adding to the gospel?

Pastor Billy: Well we try not to say that, they just don't understand the simplicity of the gospel message!

Gnostic Mike: It sounds kind of complicated to me.

Pastor Billy: Maybe you'd like to start coming to my church? I'm sure it would help clarify things for you.

Gnostic Mike: Are you saying I need your church to have it all make sense? That sounds kind of cultish.

Pastor Billy: I don't know why people always accuse us of being cultish...although we are the only doctrinally sound church in the city. But first things first. The important thing is that you get saved by believing my groundless gospel.

Gnostic Mike: That's what I'm trying to understand...so where were we? You were saying I have to believe Christ rose from the dead but not that He rose from the grave because that adds in His burial. So do I have to believe Christ rose from the dead on the third day? I mean, it says His resurrection on the third day is "according to the Scriptures," right?

Pastor Billy: Technically it does say that, but there are many passages throughout the New Testament which never mention the third day. We find that when a truth is mentioned frequently enough in the Bible it actually overrides another truth that's not mentioned quite as frequently. We like to tell people that an emphasis of one truth automatically means the exclusion of a related truth.

Gnostic Mike: I don't follow you on that one. But shouldn't this passage in 1 Corinthians 15 be considered "of first importance" (1 Cor. 15:3)? I mean, shouldn't we understand 1 Corinthians 15 in its own context and then those other gospel passages in light of the most important one?

Pastor Billy: Don't take everything so literally. After all, 1 Corinthians 15 is only one passage so it can't really be considered that important. There are many other verses throughout the New Testament that never reference a third day resurrection.

Gnostic Mike: So if I understand you correctly you're saying that even though Christ's resurrection on the third day is said to be "according to the Scriptures," I only have to believe He rose from the dead but not that it was "on the third day," right?

Pastor Billy: Now you're getting it!

Gnostic Mike: Actually, the gospel didn't seem confusing until you started explaining it to me!

Pastor Billy: That's because you're not saved. Often God uses human instruments like myself to explain these deep truths of the gospel.

Gnostic Mike: I don't know what I would do without you pastor. I sure wouldn't be able to understand the gospel simply from reading my Bible!

Pastor Billy: But once you understand it's so simple! We can't let the textual nuances of 1 Corinthians 15 override our carefully engineered system of theology, which of course is based on a synthesis of arbitrarily selected Scriptures fitting an unspecified numerical profile and the conversion experiences of a vast percentage of God's children in the world today.

Gnostic Mike: It sounds like I have a lot to learn! So you don't mind if I review all this one more time? I just want to make sure I'm getting this.

Pastor Billy: Sure but I don't have much time. I'm writing another book explaining the gospel.

Gnostic Mike: Okay...I'll try to make it quick. So you're saying I have to believe that Christ died for my sins—but now here I have another question. If Christ's resurrection on the third day is said to be "according to the Scriptures" but I don't have to believe that part about "the third day", why can't I simply believe that Christ died? I mean, I don't really have to believe the "for my sins" part, do I? I can just cut that out too, right?

Pastor Billy: The gospel isn't always consistent or clear like it may seem at first glance. You don't have to believe that Christ rose "on the third day"⁴ but you do have to believe that He died "for our sins". I know it sounds complicated but this is only the first time someone like myself has explained it to you.

Gnostic Mike: Yeah, I think I understand. It's still confusing me a bit though.

Pastor Billy: You're moving in the right direction. We can't take the passage in 1 Corinthians 15 so literally. Such an interpretation is overly historical and much too matter-of-fact. I mean honestly, whoever preaches that Christ "appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve" (1 Cor. 15:5)?!

Gnostic Mike: But didn't Paul preach it (1 Cor. 15:1)?

Pastor Billy: Well, Paul may have preached it, but only to the Corinthians in reference to the specific issues at that church.

Gnostic Mike: But doesn't Paul say that all the other apostles preached the same gospel message (1 Cor. 15:11)?

Pastor Billy: Let's not squabble over details. You'll just have to read my book. Actually, I carry extra copies of it with me for times like these. Here, why don't you take one?

Gnostic Mike: Actually I was wondering if I could just get a Bible? Mine's falling apart.

Pastor Billy: Oh, uh, I have one back at the church if you visit on Sunday. But let's not get sidetracked. Does what I've been explaining to you make sense?

Gnostic Mike: Well, not really. I'll have to go home and listen to your sermon tapes and look over your book. Your gospel is confusing me a bit.

Pastor Billy: Call me if you have any more questions. God's Word isn't always as clear as it seems. But once you understand, it's so simple!

This story serves to illustrate the real tragedy of the groundless gospel. We simply cannot improve on the gospel, but we can detract from it by clouding it's clarity with human viewpoint and distorting it's message with reductionist reasoning. This is a serious error when it comes to evangelism because the unsaved have no grid other than their darkened minds to interpret our message of life. Let's encourage one another to proclaim the gospel clearly so that it can truly be dynamite for Christ! "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power [dynamite] of God to salvation for everyone who believes"! (Romans 1:16, NKJV.)

ENDNOTES:

¹ Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ (Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2009), p. 559, ellipsis added.

² Dennis Rokser, "The Issue of Incongruity - Actual or Artificial? Pt. 2," In Defense of the Gospel blog, http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2008/05/issue-of-incongruity-actual-or_08.html (accessed December 20, 2009), emphasis his.

³ Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, pp. 561-562. 

⁴  In Stegall's list of what he believes to be the five "essential, defining elements of the Gospel," any mention of "the third day" (1 Cor. 15:4) is noticeably absent. (Stegall, THE TRAGEDY OF THE CROSSLESS GOSPEL Pt. 1," The Grace Family Journal [Spring 2007]: p. 9.) Far from being an accidental oversight, this omission is entirely purposeful. In his new book Stegall makes it clear that the reference to the third day is not, in his opinion, an essential point of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. (Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ,  p. 559.) In contrast to Stegall's partial gospel, Everett F. Harrison highlights the Biblical truth when he writes: "This much is clear from the whole discussion, that Jesus, both in His predictions [cf. Jn. 2:19; Matt. 12:38-41, etc.], and in His teaching following the resurrection [Lk. 24:46-48], laid great stress upon the time element, and the early church sought to impress the same thing in its witness (Acts 10:40; 1 Cor. 15:4)." (Everett F. Harrison, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Ed., Systematic Theology, 8 Vols., Vol. 5, p. 241.) William Lane Craig concludes: "the 'third day' motif [was] prominent in the earliest Christian preaching, as it is summarized in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5." (William Lane Craig, Jesus Under Fire, p. 150.) It is clear that Stegall's reductionist reasonings are flawed even according to his own standards because although the mention of "the third day" in 1 Corinthians 15:4 is said to be "according to the Scriptures" (a phrase which supposedly deciphers the essential elements of the partial gospel), Stegall still omits the third day time element from his gospel! Ironically, Stegall's own words bear witness against him when he writes: "This is a transparent example of doctrinally-driven exegesis, of doctrine being imposed upon Scripture rather than derived from Scripture." (Tom Stegall, THE TRAGEDY OF THE CROSSLESS GOSPEL Pt. 3," The Grace Family Journal [Fall 2007]: pp. 4-5.)

Jesus Martinez

My friend Peter has been wanting to understand and explain the truth of the gospel more clearly and effectively. Today he gave me a handwritten letter and asked me my knowledge of the Word to make sure that he was on the right track, or in other words, that he was understanding and presenting the truth. Here's what he wrote:

"The gospel is when an individual realizes they are a lost sinful individual deserving God's judgment in Hell. A person has to place 100% trust in Jesus Christ (God's Son sent to earth to save sinful man from eternal separation from God). That 100% trust in Jesus Christ (and 0% human effort) is 100% trust in the cross of Christ, having the sins of mankind nailed to Him. It is the cross alone that redeems an individual from Hell. The burial, resurrection, and appearances [of Christ] aren't paying for sin.

Why is it important to mention the burial, resurrection, and appearances in the gospel? The reason why is because just believing the cross for payment [without believing the rest of the gospel] isn't the key. There could have been another Jesus by the name of Jesus Martinez. So the case in point is that it has to be the Right Jesus (God's Son sent to earth to save sinful man from Hell by dying on the cross for mankind's sins, then being buried, raised and appearing). So when one says to preach the whole gospel, the death of Christ with the burial, resurrection and appearances [see 1 Cor. 15:3-5], what one is saying by including the burial, resurrection and appearances is another way of saying preach the Right and True Jesus Christ, God's Son, to save one from Hell when one trusts Him alone. So they don't think Jesus Martinez.

The burial, resurrection, and appearances, like I said, don't pay for sin but prove that the sins were completely paid with the death and validate the Right Jesus Christ (who is at God's right hand) who saves. It's important to mention the burial, resurrection, and appearances to an individual in case they have never heard of Jesus Christ before."

Top 10 Signs Lou Martuneac Might be a Pharisee

Candid photo presumed to be
Lou Martuneac at a book signing.

  

Top 10 Signs Lou Martuneac might be a Pharisee:

 

#10. His name is a pun for a weapon called the "Martuneaxe".¹

  

#9. He doesn't think Christians can apostatize.²

#8. He posts rehashed hit pieces from Ultra-Fundie websites.³

#7. He discourages personal study and independent thinking.⁴

#6. He repudiates contemporary sounds in Christian music.⁵

#5. He thinks amusement parks are worldly.⁶

#4. He has to inform people he's not a chauvinist pig!⁷

#3. He tells his kids not to eat the pastor's Twinkies.⁸

#2. He's earned recognition as the #1 spamming hypocrite.⁹

#1. His middle name is Have you read my book?¹⁰

ENDNOTES:

¹ Tim Nichols said:
"Lou took his Martuneaxe
And gave his brother forty whacks
And when he felt his work was done
He gave his sister forty-one"

² Lou wants to fit in with Free Gracers but he had to delete a post by a Free Grace contributing writer after his Fundie friends voiced their misgivings. Lou then reposed the article with a page length explanation why he disagreed with it! 

³ JDale said: "Lou: Have you been diagnosed with OCD? Paranoid schidzophrenia perhaps?! Good heavens man, you act like a man possessed! If you are attempting to truly warn people about what you perceive to be false doctrine, you are going about it in the absolutely 180 degree WRONG way! Stop acting like an arrogant, know it all, holier than thou pharisee and actually engage in a real conversation rather than posting rehashed hit pieces from Ultra-Fundie websites with axes to grind. Oh, and one last thing -- a small dose of humility and self-depreciation would do you a world of good. Pride goeth before a fall..." 

⁴ Lou said: "Keep those [church growth] movements and their advocates at arms' length. Do not listen to them. Do not read them. If you want to understand what these movements stand for, consult someone who can counsel you from the Word of God."

⁵ Lou is a member of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International (FBFI) and affirms: "we reject as unscriptural and unwholesome that type of religious music which seeks to imitate the world, and we also repudiate the adoption of contemporary sounds in Christian music as a viable means of reaching people."

⁶ Lou affirms: "While we are thankful for legitimate recreational and family building activities, we urge pastors and parents to find wholesome activities that reinforce their teaching to youth rather than feeding their carnal appetites by sponsoring trips to worldly amusement parks and the like. Pastors must teach the practical application of biblical principles without fear of accusations of 'legalism.'"  

⁷ Lou said to Rose: "Not to be the chauvinist pig, but men have thicker skin than women, and you need it to debate these issues."

⁸ Lou said: "This was not meant to be the Lord's Supper, but in the middle of the service the pastor had the ushers come down the aisle handing out Hostess Twinkies for everyone to eat during the service. [Editor's note: It sort of reminds me of Jesus and His disciples feeding the 5,000!] I like Twinkies as much as the next guy, but I looked at my kids and they understood my look to mean do NOT eat those Twinkies in church."

⁹ Dr. Bob Griffin said: "Every day WITHOUT Lou is a day we don't have to wade through vomitous cut-and-paste. I don't know what we'd do without him...but I'd rather!" Griffin also said: "Lou has not posted the same vomit on the thread ONCE today! God is good." Griffin asked Lou: "Are you...embarrassed at being the #1 spamming hypocrite here?"

¹⁰ Phil Johnson said: "Lou (did I mention my book?) Matuneac: [sic] 'the high profile men at T4G would really like to see this controversy go away and are highly unlikely to have anything public to say about it.' Thanks for the insight into the hearts of men whom I doubt you have ever even talked to. Can you tell what I'm thinking right now? Hint #1: It has to do with exercising my authority as an administrator to deal with someone who has asked me neither to e-mail him privately nor comment on his blog but who keeps spamming my blog with his pompous pronouncements. Hint #2: he's an author who is a legend in his own mind." Similarly, Dan Phillips (DJP) said: "I don't want Stuart doing a Hi-I'm-Lou-Martuneac-Read-My-Book on every meta about his personal hobby horse. So, let's stick to the topic."

"No Reserves, No Retreat, No Regrets" | Bill Borden of Yale

Bill Borden
(1887-1913)

Bill was born into a wealthy family and grew up in Chicago. His mother was the first in the family to trust in Christ and she began taking him to Moody Church. He soon responded to the gospel through the powerful preaching of Dr. R. A. Torrey.

Bill's high school graduation present was a trip around the world. During that trip he was burdened for the multitudes of people who had little or no access to the gospel, and a desire to become a missionary was born. Though many people would question why he would throw his life away in a faraway land, he wrote in the back of his Bible, "No reserves."

Bill entered Yale University as an excellent student and star athlete. Though he was handsome and worth millions, it was his passion for prayer and Bible study that God used to begin a morning prayer and Bible study group with his fellow freshman. It soon grew into multiple groups and impacted the majority of Yale's 1,300 students by the time he graduated four years later. In his passion to reach the lowest of the low, he also founded the Yale Hope Mission while still a student.

After graduating from Yale, Bill turned down several prestigious job offers. Because of his resolve to leave everything behind and become a missionary, his father eventually told him he would never work in the family company again. Below his earlier entry in the back of his Bible, he wrote, "No retreat."

Bill felt called to reach the Muslims of Northern China, so he set out for Egypt where he would do his preparatory language study. A month into his training he contracted spinal meningitis and soon died at the age of 25.

Newspapers all across the United States carried the ironic story of the untimely death of Bill Borden, once heir to the Borden milk and dairy family fortune, who gave up his wealth, and eventually his life, to become a missionary in a distant land. Yet before his death, Bill added a third phrase to the two preceding ones in his Bible, "No regrets."

At first glance Borden's death appeared to be a tragedy. But his willingness to sacrifice everything for the cause of sharing Christ's gospel to those who had never heard it, became powerful motivation to many other young people. They too said "no" to the things of this world and embraced a call to mission service instead.

Bill Borden began his journey to China 101 years ago today. Though he died before reaching his goal, his epitaph summarizes the power Christ has to transform a person's life: "A man in Christ. He arose and forsook all and followed Him, Kindly affectioned with brotherly love, Fervent in spirit serving the Lord, Rejoicing in hope, Patient in tribulation, Instant in prayer, Communicating to the necessity of saints, In honour preferring others. Apart from faith in Christ, There is no explanation for such a life."

This article originally appeared in the Elizabethton Star newspaper, Wednesday, December 18, 2013. Reprinted by permission of Bruce Hendrich, Pastor of Oak Street Baptist Church, Elizabethton, TN.

A Free Grace Translation of 1 Corinthians 15:1-5

One of the things I found very interesting when I translated the Greek text of 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 into English was that there is an interrogative pronoun (tini with the acute accent on the first vowel) in verse 2 that most English translations don't translate, at least not as a question. But the apostle Paul is asking the Corinthians a question about the gospel.[1] He's basically asking them: What have I preached to you? What is the good news I preached to you? Then Paul proceeds to remind the Corinthians (and us today) of what the gospel really is.

   
What follows is my personal translation of 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 from the Koine Greek New Testament. The Greek text I used is from The Reader's Greek New Testament, 2nd Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007).

A Free Grace Translation of 1 Corinthians 15:1-5:

1 Now I declare to you, brothers, the gospel, which I announced as good news to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 through which also you are saved. For what statement have I preached to you if you retain it? Except if not, you believed to no purpose. 3 For I delivered to you in first order of importance that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.

ENDNOTES:

[1] The Expositor's Greek New Testament affirms that in 1 Corinthians 15:2 the apostle Paul is asking the Corinthians a question. It translates the Greek text of verse 2 this way: "In what word (I ask) did I preach (it) to you? – (you will remember) if you are holding (it) fast! – unless you believed idly!" (See W. R. Nicoll, The Expositor's Greek New Testament, 5 Vols., Vol. 2, p. 919.) Related to this, there is some debate regarding the exact meaning of the phrase in 1 Corinthians 15:2, "by which also you are saved" (NKJV). Many popular English translations have "are saved" (e.g. the NIV, NASB, NKJV, KJV, etc.) but some translations read: "are being saved" (e.g. the ESV and the NET Bible). The comment by Dr. S. Lewis Johnson on 1 Corinthians 15:2 in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary is helpful. He writes: "Ye are saved (Gr., present tense) may refer to continual salvation from the power of sin in the lives of believers, or it may refer to the day-by-day salvation of the inhabitants of Corinth as they received the message and formed part of the church of Jesus Christ." (S. Lewis Johnson, Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison, Editors, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary [Chicago: Moody Press, 1990], p. 1255.) Commenting on this same passage of Scripture, Dr. Charlie Bing of GraceLife ministries similarly writes: "We have to get the gospel right to be saved (from hell), but we must also get the gospel right to keep on getting saved (from sin). The deliverance God wants for us is not only from the penalty of sin (our justification), but also from the power of sin (our sanctification) and the presence of sin (our glorification)....The gospel that initially saves us is the same gospel that keeps saving us and the gospel that ultimately saves us – and it's all by God's grace!" (Charlie Bing, "You are Saved, if you Hold Fast – 1 Corinthians 15:1-2," GraceNotes, No. 62.)

1 Corinthians 15:1-5 in the Williams New Testament

"Now let me remind you, brothers, of the essence¹ of the good news which I proclaimed to you, which you accepted, on which you now are standing, and through which you are to be saved,² unless your faith at first was spurious.³ For I passed on to you, among the primary principles of the good news,⁴ what I had received, that Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the Scriptures, that He was buried, that on the third day He was raised from the dead, in accordance with the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, and then by the Twelve."[1] 

Footnotes:

¹ Implied in phrase, among the primary principles.

² At last.

³ Lit., in vain.

⁴ Grk., among the first things; good news implied.

Reference:

[1] Charles B. Williams, The New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People (Chicago: Moody Press, 1950), pp. 386-387, footnotes his.

The Jeremiah Study Bible on the Gospel

Here is Dr. David Jeremiah's study note on the gospel from 1 Corinthians 15, in The Jeremiah Study Bible:

"[1 Corinthians] 15:3-7 Here is the standard by which every definition of the gospel must be measured. It must include four elements: Christ's death, burial, and resurrection as well as the testimony of the witnesses to the Resurrection. The gospel cannot be preached the way it should be without proclaiming all four truths."[1]

The reason I like Dr. Jeremiah's explanation of the gospel is that he makes it clear that the definition of the gospel includes not merely the two facts of Christ's death and resurrection, but rather four facts: "Christ died for our sins...was buried...was raised...and was seen" (1 Cor. 15:3-5).  Not a popular truth for some people today, but it's biblical!

ENDNOTE:

[1] Dr. David Jeremiah, The Jeremiah Study Bible, note on 1 Corinthians 15:3-7.

Bob Utley's "FOUR ASPECTS OF THE GOSPEL"

Dr. Bob Utley begins to discuss the "FOUR ASPECTS OF THE GOSPEL" at 

the "3:44" time stamp of the video. 

Here's a screenshot of Dr. Bob Utley's "FOUR ASPECTS OF THE GOSPEL:"

"DEFINING THE GOSPEL" | by David Jeremiah

In his book Sanctuary: Finding Moments of Refuge in the Presence of God, David Jeremiah shares the following true story in a daily devotional titled "DEFINING THE GOSPEL":

"Duncan McNeil, the Scottish evangelist, once said that in school he had a seminary professor who insisted on opening his theology classes with a question. No one could ever anticipate what the question would be. One day he said to his students, 'Gentlemen, can someone give me a definition of the gospel?'

A student rose and read John 3:16: 'For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.'

The professor said, 'That is a good gospel text, but it is not a definition of the gospel.' Another student read 1 Timothy 1:15: 'How true it is, and how I long that everyone should know it, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners - and I was the greatest of them all.' Again the professor declined to accept it; he waited for what he wanted. Finally, a student stood and read 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, much to the professor's delight. It was evident that he had the reply he desired; he said, 'Gentlemen, that is the gospel. Believe it, live it, preach it, and die for it if necessary.'"¹


ENDNOTE:

¹ David Jeremiah, Sanctuary: Finding Moments of Refuge in the Presence of God (Nashville: Integrity Publishers, 2002), pg. 277.

The Strongest Definition of the Gospel

The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Zondervan: 2001) is a good layman's resource that I have found very helpful in personal study. It has improved on the original Strong's Concordance in a number of ways. For example, The Strongest Strong's has updated and expanded some of the Hebrew and Greek definitions of the original. In the introduction (page x) it says, "Our dictionaries are based on the latest dictionaries, lexicons, and word study books, reflecting great advances in Biblical scholarship."

One update that I have found very helpful in The Strongest Strong's is the expanded definition of the Greek word euangelizo. The Strongest Strong's gives this definition of euangelizo: 

"to preach (bring) the good news (gospel), often with a focus on the content of the message which is brought. In the NT it always refers to the death, burial, resurrection, and witness about Jesus Christ, including its implications for humankind's relationship to God" (see page 1613, number 2097 euangelizo).

The word euangelizo is used in both Acts 13:32 and 1 Corinthians 15:1 to describe the gospel preached by the apostle Paul: a gospel which according to both texts includes Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and appearances to witnesses (see Acts 13:28-31; 1 Cor. 15:3-5). This is the strongest definition of the gospel!

The Gospel Message

1 Corinthians 15:1-11

“The gospel is very simple. Even a child can comprehend its content and respond to its message. The apostle Paul encompassed the heart of the gospel in just twenty-eight words - ‘Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and . . . He was buried, and . . . He rose again the third day according to the scriptures; and . . . He was seen’ (vv. 3-5). Paul was not ashamed of that gospel (Rom. 1:16) and proclaimed it wherever he traveled, assuring his readers in Rome that he had, up to the time of his writing, ‘fully preached the gospel of Christ’ from Jerusalem all the way to the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea (Rom. 15:19). In his heart, this first century missionary had determined that wherever he engaged with unregenerate men he would preach ‘Jesus Christ, and Him crucified’ (2:2). The church at Corinth was reminded of Paul’s burden ‘to preach the gospel in the regions beyond [them]’ (2 Cor. 10:16).

     

‘The gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (2 Thess. 1:8) ‘is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth’ (Rom. 1:16). It was the gospel that Paul preached to the Corinthians (Acts 18), knowing that only through that message would they be saved (v. 2). The good news of Christ, the crucified One, was the very foundation of their salvation. Paul delivered the message he had received (v. 3), and God did a work of grace in their hearts as they responded favorably, in faith. The ‘light of the glorious gospel of Christ’ had penetrated their darkened hearts and given ‘the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ’ (2 Cor. 4:4, 6). Has that light pierced the gloom of your heart? Christ died for sinners - trust Him today!”[1]

Reference:

[1] John E. Duty (JED), “The Gospel Message”. Excerpted from the Fundamental Evangelistic Association’s FEATURE Bible Study Guide (April - June 2014), page 15, ellipsis his. Used by permission. John E. Duty is the pastor of Community Bible Church in Leola, Pennsylvania.

Andy Stanley Gives a Snapshot of the Gospel

What Is "the Gospel" at Grace Biblical Seminary?

There's division in the ranks at Grace Biblical Seminary in McDonough, Georgia (formerly known as Free Grace Seminary). Amazingly, two contrary definitions of the gospel are being promoted by the staff!

Rick Whitmire and Tom Stegall are both on staff at Grace Biblical Seminary in McDonough, Georgia. The school’s stated mission is “to advance the cause of Christ by presenting the gospel of God’s amazing grace”¹ — yet actually these two men  have contrary definitions of that very gospel! Rich Whitmire is Vice President and Dean of Online Education, as well as Professor of Evangelism, Biblical and Theological Studies. Tom Stegall is Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies. Notice the following public statements these men have made in regards to the gospel, and how their statements are contrary to each other. 

Rick Whitmire's 
Statements on the Gospel:

“Romans 1:16 – ‘For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the (Gentiles).’…

The Apostle Paul Defines the Gospel: 

1 Corinthians 15:3-5 – ‘For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ DIED for our sins according to the scriptures: And that He was BURIED, and that He ROSE again the third day according to the scripture: And that He was SEEN...’

The Apostle Paul summarizes the most basic ingredients of the gospel message, namely, the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of the resurrected Christ.

a. This is the one place where the historical elements of the gospel are clearly defined. Our responsibility is to make the gospel clear and Biblical. But in order to do so, we must have a clear understanding of what the gospel means in the New Testament. These verses, give us the heart of the gospel. Note the four clauses introduced in verses 3-5.

b. The Apostles [sic] Paul in defining the gospel uses four verbs: 1). Christ Died.... 2). Christ was Buried.… 3). Christ Rose.… 4). Christ was Seen.” ²

Tom Stegall's 
Statements on the Gospel:

“Paul did not consider the burial and appearances to be part of ‘the gospel’....”³

"...the burial and post-resurrection appearances of Christ are not technically part of the gospel...” ⁴

"...the cross and resurrection are elements of the gospel in distinction to the burial and appearances..."⁵

"The interpretation that views the four clauses in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 as...all being necessary components of the gospel, is at odds with the entire pattern of the New Testament."⁶

“...only the substitutionary death and bodily resurrection of Christ are elements of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15, in contrast to the burial and appearances”⁷

Comparing and contrasting the above statements of the two men, notice that while Rick Whitmire states that "the most basic ingredients of the gospel message, [are] namely, the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of the resurrected Christ" — Tom Stegall says that "the burial and post-resurrection appearances of Christ are not technically part of the gospel"! So while Rick Whitmire says that Christ's burial and appearances are part of the gospel, Tom Stegall says they are not part of the gospel. So which is it? It cannot be both!

I trust that Grace Biblical Seminary will address this division over the gospel and hold Tom Stegall accountable for his false teaching so the school can move forward in spirit and in truth, “with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel” (Philippians 1:27).

ENDNOTES:

¹ http://www.gracebiblicalseminary.org/about-us/our-mission-purpose-vision/

² Rick Whitmire, “The Facts Presentation,” GO TELL EVANGELISM, CHAPTER 2, OUR WITNESS FOR CHRIST (dated “07-15-03”), underlining, capitalization, and second ellipsis his, http://tgcministry.com/gotell/gts_2.htm (accessed April 5, 2012). Note: In the original article much of Whitmire’s statement is in bold print.

³ Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ (Milwaukee, Grace Gospel Press, 2009), p. 579.

⁴ Ibid., p. 578.

⁵ Ibid., p. 579.

⁶ Ibid., p. 588.

⁷ Ibid., p. 585. Note: Stegall's statement is false in light of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. For more information see my article: "Getting the Gospel Right, Pt. 1".

The Hand Illustration of the Gospel

"Free, But Not Cheap!" | by Bible Truth Publishers

During the noon hour, a preacher of the gospel had gone down into a coal mine to tell the miners of the good news of salvation which comes through Jesus Christ. After telling them the simple story of God's love to sinners and God's remedy for their sins in His offer of a full and free salvation, their lunch break was over. As the men went back to work, the preacher came back to the elevator shaft to ride up to the top. Meeting the foreman, he asked him what he thought of God's way of salvation.

The foreman replied, "Oh, it's too cheap! I can't believe in a religion like that!"

Without commenting on his remark, the preacher asked, "How do you get out of this place?"

"Just get into the elevator cage and ride to the top" was the foreman's reply.

"Does it take long to get to the top?"

"No...only a few seconds!"

"That certainly sounds pretty easy and simple. But don't I need to help raise myself?" asked the preacher.

"Of course not!" replied the foreman. "All you have to do is get in the elevator cage, and it carries you to the top."

"Tell me about the company who opened the shaft and worked out all the details. Was there much planning, labor and expense to make it all work?"

"Oh yes, there was much calculating before they actually began sinking the shaft. The shaft is eighteen hundred feet deep, and it was completed at great cost to the company who owns the mine. It is our only way out, and without it we couldn't get to the surface," the foreman explained.

"That's exactly my point!" said the preacher. "When God's Word tells us that anyone who believes on the Son of God has everlasting life, you say, 'Too cheap!' You forget that God's work to bring you and others out of the pit of destruction and death was planned in divine detail and accomplished at a great expense. The cost was the suffering and death of His beloved Son on the cross! Now all that's left for you to do is believe."

You are "not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold...but with the precious blood of Christ" (1 Peter 1:18-19).

"God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

People talk about God helping them with their salvation; they say, "If I do my part, God will do His." They disregard the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ by Himself removed our sins and that their part is only to believe and accept what He has already done—all they have to do is "step into the elevator cage!"

"Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree" (1 Peter 2:24).

"By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

* * * 

Courtesy of Bible Truth Publishers

The Partial Gospel: What Is "The Rest of the Story"?

The well-known radio broadcaster Paul Harvey would often close his daily radio program with a segment called The Rest of the Story. It consisted of presenting "little-known or forgotten facts"^[1] of important events on a variety of subjects.

Have you heard The Rest of the Story in regards to the gospel? Oftentimes people say the gospel is 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. They conclude the gospel by placing a period at the end of verse 4 so that it reads: "I declare unto you the gospel...that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures." But in reality, the gospel doesn't end there! There is no period at the end of 1 Corinthians 15:4 in the biblical text. Instead, there is a comma at the end of 1 Corinthians 15:4, and then 1 Corinthians 15:5 begins with the linking word "and". In other words, the gospel includes verse 5: "and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." So according to the Bible, the gospel not only includes Christ's death, burial, and resurrection — it also includes Christ's manifestation to His disciples (see 1 Corinthians 15:5; also see John 20:19-21:14). To put it more concisely, the gospel includes Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and manifestation (see 1 Corinthians 15:3-5). That's "the rest of the story" — the whole gospel message!

Commenting on the apostle Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15:1, "I declare unto you the gospel," the New Testament scholar Dean Henry Alford (1810-1871) affirms: "I declare...the (whole) Gospel: not merely the Death and Resurrection of Christ, which were en protois [priority] parts of it".^[2] 

Darrel Bock similarly affirms: "In fact, only to speak of Jesus dying for sin – even to speak of Jesus dying for sin and rising again – is to give only about half of the gospel message….Paul in 1 Cor 15:3-5 summarizes the gospel as the fact that Jesus 'died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas.'"^[3]

The whole gospel includes the fact that the risen Christ "appeared in the presence of His disciples" (Jn. 20:30-31; cf. 1 Cor. 15:3-5). 

And now you know "The Rest of the Story"!

References:

^[1] "The Rest of the Story," Wikipedia.

^[2] Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, 4 Vols., Vol. 2, p. 602, ellipsis added; cf. Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, 2 Vols., Vol. 2, p. 229.

^[3] Darrell Bock, Recovering the Real Lost Gospel: Reclaiming the Gospel as Good News (Nashville: B and H Publishing Group, 2010), p. 3, italics his, ellipsis added. Cf. Bock, The Bible Knowledge Word Study: Acts – Ephesians (Colorado Springs: Cook Communications Ministries, 2006), pp. 310-311. 

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary: Still True to the Gospel

Although some today are using systematic theology to redefine the gospel,¹ such is not the case with Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS). All the way back in 1913, B. H. Carroll, the founder and first president of the institution, affirmed that "the gospel" in 1 Corinthians 15 includes the following four facts: 1) Christ's death for our sins, 2) His burial in a tomb, 3) His resurrection on the third day, and 4) His appearances to His disciples.²

     

Now, 100 years later, the school is still preaching that old, old story of Jesus and His love (Romans 5:8). In an article titled "We Should Study Systematic Theology for the Gospel," SWBTS faculty member Thomas White writes: "1 Corinthians 15:3-5 provides a short summary of the Gospel:

1 Cor. 15:3-5, For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." ³

May I say, that's a theological insight and a biblical insight!

ENDNOTES:

¹ For an example of this see the article: "The Strange Beliefs of Stegall's System".

² Commenting on 1 Corinthians 15, B. H. Carrol says: “This chapter commences with the statement of the facts which constitute the gospel. The first fact, ‘Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures.’ Three ideas are involved in that fact: 1. Christ actually died. It was not a mere trance; it was actual death. 2. It was a vicarious, substitutionary, expiatory death. ‘He died for our sins.’ 3. He died for our sins ‘according to the Scriptures’ – that the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament up to the time of his crucifixion clearly foretold his actual, substitutionary, and expiatory death. The second fact in the gospel is that he was buried – he was dead and buried – and that was according to the Scriptures. The Scriptures testified that he would be buried. The third fact is that on the third day, according to the Scriptures, he rose from the dead; and the fourth fact of the gospel is, that risen, he was visible to men, recognized by men, and identified by men.” (Carroll, An Interpretation of the English Bible [Grand Rapids: Broadman Press, 1948], 17 Vols., Vol. 13, pp. 246-247. Note: This book was originally published by the Fleming H. Revell company in 1913.)

³ Thomas White, "We Should Study Systematic Theology for the Gospel (cont.)," Theological Matters blog (April 12, 2013), italics his.

Biblical Repentance: Lost in Translation?

Recently a non Free Grace pastor warned me that I would be disciplined by the church if I tried to explain the right and wrong definitions of repentance to people in the congregation. He didn't want me to clarify the word repentance because he thought it might offend someone. But the Bible says: “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth . . .” (2 Timothy 4:2-4).

I'm convinced that a great need exists in the church today to clearly explain exactly what biblical repentance is (from the Greek) and also clearly explain what it's not. This need exists because the word “repentance” in our English New Testament is really not the best translation of the original Greek word metanoia.

   
Many Bible teachers agree that the word repentance is really not the best word to translate the Greek word metanoia. For example, notice the following statements:

• “The problem is not preaching repentance; it is giving a wrong definition to the word. Down through the centuries ‘repent’ has come to mean a far different thing than when it was spoken by John the Baptist, the Apostle Paul, the Apostle John, and Jesus Christ Himself. . . . If you look up the Greek word translated ‘repent’ in the King James Bible and used by Jesus, Paul, John and others in the New Testament, you will find that the [Greek] word metanoeo [which is simply the verb of the noun metanoia] means to think differently or afterwards, that is, to change the mind.” (Curtis Hutson, Repentance: What Does the Bible Teach? [Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1986], pp. 3-4.) 

• “Modern [Bible] translators . . . generally translate metanoia as repentance. While this is an improvement over the Latin translation ‘penance,’ it is in most cases, as we shall now see, a poor reflection of its meaning in the NT.” (Bob Wilkin, “New Testament Repentance: Lexical Considerations,” bible.org/seriespage/new-testament-repentance-lexical-considerations.) 

• “the English word repentance derives from the Latin and does not express the exact meaning of  [the Greek word] metanoia.” (Wendell G. Johnston, “Repentance,” Don Campbell, Wendell Johnston, John Walvoord, John Witmer, The Theological Wordbook [Nashville: Word Publishing, 2000], p. 296.) 

• “The word ‘repentance’ is not the best translation [of metanoia]. A better translation would have been ‘to change your mind.’” (James A. Scudder, Forever With God [Lake Zurich: Victory in Grace Ministries, 2010], p. 40.) 

• “As we said earlier, repentance is the translation of the Greek word metanoia, which means ‘change of mind.’ . . . Repentance is a vital ingredient in saving faith. . . . If one asks, which comes first, faith or repentance, it depends how one defines repentance. If one sticks with its biblical meaning—‘change of mind’—then one can only say that they come together. But if one defines repentance, as ‘turning from every known sin’ (as some Puritans were inclined to do), one can see the endless confusion that will emerge if such ‘repentance’ is demanded prior to faith. The result has been doom and gloom, being never quite sure they are saved, owing to a fear they have not repented enough.” (R. T. Kendall, One Saved, Always Saved [Chicago: Moody Press, 1985], pp. 193-194.)

• “In the English Bible the word [metanoia] is translated ‘repentance,’ but this rendering hardly does justice to the original, since it gives undue prominence to the emotional element.” (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996], p. 480.) 

• “[The word] ‘Repentance’ suggests primarily sorrow for sin; metanoia suggests a change of mind”. (George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993], p. 36.)

• “the rendering found in many of our [Bible] translations, namely, ‘Repent’—thus A.V., A.R.V., R.S.V., etc.—is probably not the best.” (William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973], p. 196.)

• “It is evident that repentance is a mistranslation of metanoia. This fact was never more apparent than during the English and American revisions of the King James version of our Bible. Frequent debate centered around this word and it was the opinion of many that a suitable English equivalent should be sought for the Greek expression. It was agreed, however, that no one English word was sufficient to convey all that lay in the Greek. And, although it was admitted that the translation was poor, it was felt that the common term should be retained in the hope that it would come to convey all that its Greek derivative expressed. Several English words were suggested to the revisers, among them resipiscence (derived from a word meaning ‘to come to one's senses’), but manifestly none of them was appropriate. It seems to be the present task of the expositors, then, to pause at the reading of this word [repentance] and reiterate all that it is really intended to mean.” (William Walden Howard, “Is Faith Enough to Save? Part 3,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 99 [January 1942]: p. 96. Cf. Larry Moyer, Free and Clear [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1997], p. 86.)

• “Repent (metanoeite). Broadus used to say that this is the worst translation in the New Testament. The trouble is that the English word ‘repent’ means ‘to be sorry again’ from the Latin repoenitet (impersonal). John [the Baptist] did not call on the people to be sorry, but to change (think afterwards) their mental attitudes (metanoeite) and conduct. The Vulgate has it ‘do penance’ and Wycliff has followed that. The Old Syriac has it better: ‘Turn ye.’ The French (Geneva) has it “Amendez vous.” This is John’s great word (Bruce) and it has been hopelessly mistranslated. The tragedy of it is that we have no one English word that reproduces exactly the meaning and atmosphere of the Greek word.” (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures of the New Testament, commentary on Matthew 3:2.) 

• “It is a linguistic and theological tragedy that we have to go on using ‘repentance’ for metanoia. But observe that the ‘sorrow’ has led to ‘repentance’ and was not itself the repentance.” (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, commentary on 2 Corinthians 7:9.) 

• “It is unfortunate that [the Greek word] metanoeo is translated ‘repent’ in the English Bible, for the English etymology denotes more the idea of penitence as sorrow, or worse, the [Roman] Catholic doctrine of penance, than it does the more accurate ‘change of mind.’” (Charles Bing, Lordship Salvation: A Biblical Evaluation and Response [Xulon Press, 2010], p. 69.)

• “Here, now, we come upon the practical and all-important point of this inquiry. For, putting these words, Metanoia and Repentance, side by side, is there not, on the contrary [to what some say], a most radical divergency between them? . . . At the best [the word Repentance] can only hang on the skirts of the great Greek expression [Metanoia]. . . . How did such an extraordinary mistranslation get into our New Testament? . . . We feel prepared, at least, to say, with regard to the present subject, that the necessary employment of a paraphrase should not be an occasion for hesitation in making so important an alteration. We can leave it to the candid reader to judge which is the most [or least] objectionable; a resort to a paraphrase which really translates, or the preference for a technical word, to say nothing of an uncertain one, which is always in need of translation. Better, even, were the bald phrase ‘change of mind,’ with an explanation which would give it fullness and dignity, than the misleading rendering we have to put up with now.” (Treadwell Walden, “THE GREAT MEANING OF THE WORD METANOIA: LOST IN THE OLD VERSION, UNRECOVERED IN THE NEW," The American Church Review, Vol. 35 [July 1881]: pp. 148, 149, 153, 155; cf. Walden, The Great Meaning of Metanoia [New York: Whittaker, 1896], pp. 14, 15, 24, 29.)

In conclusion, it can be said that the English word repentance does not exactly express the meaning of metanoia. Therefore, in order to “accurately handle the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15), it's necessary to explain the meaning of repentance much like Ezra and the Levitical priests explained the Pentateuch to Israel: “They read out of the book of the law of God, translating and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was read” (Nehemiah 8:8, HCSB).