Is it possible to write a review that is at the same time sympathetic and critical? I hope so, because that is my goal with Richard Stearns’s The Hole in Our Gospel (Thomas Nelson, 2009). Stearns, the president of World Vision, has written a book that is winsome, compelling, and often inspiring.

The Hole in Our Gospel is also theologically flawed and economically misguided. In other words, I have some serious criticisms of the book, but its overall charge to care for the poor and put our faith into action is a good and necessary challenge. The Hole in Our Gospel tries to answer the question, “What does God expect of us?” Stearns argues that God expects more from us than going to church, saying a few prayers, avoiding the big sins, and believing the right things. “The idea behind The Hole in Our Gospel is quite simple. It’s basically the belief that being a Christian, or follower of Jesus Christ, requires much more than just having a personal and transforming relationship with God. It also entails a public and transforming relationship with the world” (p. 2, emphasis in original). God changed the world two thousand years ago with twelve men, and He can do it again-if only we will give ourselves fully to the task of being the good news, and bring compassion and justice to a world ravaged by disease, hunger, and oppression.

It’s hard not to like Richard Stearns. His love for Jesus Christ and the church is evident. His concern for “the least of these” and disdain for many aspects of the American Dream are admirable. His tone, even in rebuke, is warm and humble. No doubt, World Vision is doing a lot of work near to the heart of God. And Stearns, no doubt, is on the side of the angels. There is a lot to be gained from reading The Hole in Our Gospel. But there are also a number of problems with Stearns’s book. Let me mention three.

Moral Proximity. In the worthwhile effort to get us to care about suffering around the world and not just suffering in our own lives, Stearns overshoots his mark and disallows any degrees of moral proximity. To have more compassion for someone closer to us geographically, socially, or culturally, Stearns argues, is to value one human life over another (107). Though he’s no fan of Peter Singer (the controversial ethicist from Princeton), he quotes from him approvingly, affirming Singer’s principle that moral responsibility cannot take into account proximity or distance (111). So Stearns asks (I’m paraphrasing): Why don’t we respond to other people’s kids like they are our kids? Why don’t we help starving people in Africa like we would if they were literally left on our doorstep? Does God have different compassion for different people in different parts of the world?

Stearns wants to shake us out of our apathy. Good, but this is not the way to do it. I’m not even sure Stearns really believes the implications of his argument. The fact of the matter is that we do care for our own children in a special way. Our hearts do break more for our friends than for people we’ve never met. This doesn’t mean we automatically think those other people are worth less to God. It just means we are human. Jesus didn’t weep at the sight of every illness or death, but He did weep when His friend Lazarus died (John 11:35). It is an impossible burden to think that we are obligated to help every orphan in the world like we should help the child drowning in the pool in front of us. Let’s stir up compassion, but let’s not burden each other with false guilt because we feel a special sense of obligation to help our friends, our family, and those next door. The renewed cry for social justice in our day will only be a helpful corrective to middle-class lethargy if the social justice advocates don’t exaggerate our failures and don’t overstate their case from Scripture.

In a similar vein, Stearns is quick to turn commands meant for the church into commands to care for the whole world. He dismisses the idea that the “least of these” in Matthew 25 refers to other Christians or even traveling missionaries, despite the use of the word “brother” (292-93). Elsewhere he concludes: “The Bible is clear from the Old Testament through the New Testament that God’s people always had a responsibility to see that everyone in their society was cared for at a basic-needs level” (123). This is an important conclusion for Stearns because it means that poverty is a justice issue. But there’s nothing in either Testament to suggest that Christians must see that everyone in society-including all those outside the covenant community-are to be cared for at a basic-needs level. This is not to discourage Christians from helping non-Christians. It does mean, however, that the church is not responsible for the redistribution of a society’s resources. Do good to everyone, the Bible teaches, and especially to those of the household of faith (Gal. 6:10).

The Hole in Our Economics. Stearns perpetuates a number of economic fallacies and half-truths. First, he argues, via Jimmy Carter, that the growing gap between the rich and the poor is the root cause underneath most of the world’s unresolved problems (98). Although Stearns says in one place that we are not to blame for the poverty of the developing world (123), this note is missing throughout the rest of the book. For example, he leads off Part 3 with John Berger’s claim that “the poverty of our century is unlike that of any other. It is not, as poverty was before, the result of natural scarcity, but of a set of priorities imposed upon the rest of the world by the rich” (95). So is poverty in the two-thirds world our fault or not?

Second, the way Stearns employs statistics is misleading. He states that “the wealthiest 7 people on earth control more wealth than the combined GDP of the 41 most heavily indebted nations.” But why say “control” instead of “earned” or “created”? He tells us that “the top 20 percent of the world’s population consumes 86 percent of the world’s goods” (122). But why not give statistics on what percentage of the world’s goods that twenty percent also creates? I’m sure many rich people are rapacious goons, but it is unhelpful to frame the numbers as if wealth were a zero-sum game. Stearns argues that “the wealthiest countries, where just one-fifth of the world’s population lives, spend 90 percent of the world’s health care dollars, allowing the remaining four-fifths of the planet to spend only 10 percent of the money” (141). This makes it sound like there is a fixed pie of health care dollars and all the rich countries raided the pie before the poor countries had a chance to get to the table. This is bad logic and bad economics.

Third, Stearns continues to argue for more government aid. He suggests that if the rich nations would only divert five percent of the military expenditures into aid, another billion people could be lifted out of extreme poverty (158). Not only does this ignore the possibility that military expenditure can actually help the poor, it overlooks the mounting evidence from people such as William Easterly (The White Man’s Burden) and Dambisa Moyo (Dead Aid), that governmental aid in places like Africa is more problem than solution.

Getting the Gospel Right. Lastly, and more significantly, The Hole in Our Gospel marginalizes what is central to the gospel. To be fair, Stearns acknowledges that reconciliation between God and man through the atoning work of Christ is part of the gospel (15). But the whole gospel, says Stearns over and over, is God’s vision for a new way of living (276). The “essence” of the good news is that God’s kingdom is going to begin on earth through the changed lives of His followers. But Stearns doesn’t make clear how one enters this kingdom, or that the in-breaking of the kingdom is bad news for those who oppose God and do not trust in Jesus Christ. No doubt, Stearns would agree with the apostle Paul that the gospel is the good news that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that He was buried, and that He was raised from the dead and appeared to many witnesses (1 Cor. 15:3-8). But what Paul labels “as of first importance,” I hear Stearns demeaning as a diminished gospel (279).

It seems that for Stearns the gospel is primarily something we do. The gospel is not an announcement of what God has done for us in history. The gospel is a “social revolution” (20). At one point, after quoting 2 Corinthians 5:20 that we are “Christ’s ambassadors as though God were making his appeal through us,” Stearns says, “God chose us to be His representatives. He called us to go out, to proclaim the ‘good news’-to be the ‘good news’-and to change the world” (3). This is certainly a curious gloss on what it means for God to make His appeal through us.

Frankly, for all its laudable exhortations, I find Stearns’s gospel exhausting and even triumphalistic and paternalistic at times. I can’t count all the times in the book we are told to change the world, start a social revolution, or usher in the kingdom of God. If only we gave more or had the will, we could eradicate hunger and win the war on poverty. For the first time in history we have the know-how and access to solve these problems, we are told. Now we just have to make it happen. The church around the world is waiting for us to act. Without our efforts and resources directed toward the developing world, their lot in life will never improve. According to Stearns, “This is not to be a far-off and distant kingdom to be experienced only in the afterlife. Christ’s vision was of a redeemed world order populated by redeemed people-now…It’s up to us. We are to be the change” (243-44, emphasis in original). Does God’s reign and rule really depend on us?

I think I know where Stearns is coming from. He wants our faith to work. He wants Christians to care about the world and not just about their “fire insurance.” I get that. I applaud that. He should be more careful in talking about the gospel, however, lest it become a generic message about how God is going to make the world a better place. “Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words” (23) is not a helpful saying. Besides the fact that there’s no record that St. Francis ever said this and every indication that he didn’t live this way, the pithy saying represents a confusion of categories. We must use words if we are to preach the gospel, because the gospel is a message we must proclaim. If we never live like Christians, we are not Christians. But to tell people that they must repent and believe in Jesus for the remission of sins, to tell them that God sent His Son in love to bear His just wrath, to tell them that they must receive the kingdom in faith like little children, is not a gospel with a hole in it. It is precisely the center, and Stearns’s call to action would have been more compelling if it more clearly radiated from there.

-Kevin DeYoung

Kevin DeYoung is the senior pastor at University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan. A graduate of Hope College and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Kevin is the author of Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion (Moody, 2009), Just Do Something: A Liberating Approach to Finding God’s Will (Moody, 2009), and The Good News We Almost Forgot (Moody, 2010).

The first step involves developing a relationship with an unbeliever. This includes using your personal testimony as a bridge into sharing the good news of the gospel. This is the inverse of grabbing somebody by the lapels and shouting, “Brother, are you saved?”

After a relationship is established, you can move naturally into a presentation of the gospel using the alliterated words realize, repent, and receive.

First, according to Scripture, people need to realize that they are sinners. If we do not realize that we are sinners, we will not recognize our need for a savior. The Bible says we “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).

Furthermore, one must repent of their sins. Repentance is an old English word that describes a willingness to turn from sin toward Jesus Christ. It literally means a complete U-turn on the road of life-a change of heart and a change of mind. It means having a willingness to follow Jesus and receive Him as Savior and Lord. Jesus said, “Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:15).

Finally, true belief means a willingness to receive. To truly receive is to trust in and depend on Jesus Christ alone to be the Lord of our lives here and now and our Savior for all eternity. It takes more than knowledge (the Devil knows about Jesus). It takes more than agreement that the knowledge we have is accurate (the Devil agrees that Jesus is Lord). What it takes is trust in Jesus Christ alone for eternal life. The requirements for eternal life are based not on what we can do but on what Jesus Christ has done. He stands ready to exchange His perfection for our imperfection.

According to Jesus Christ, those who realize they are sinners, repent of their sins, and receive Him as Savior and Lord are “born again” (John 3:3)-not physically, but spiritually. And with this spiritual birth must come growth.

Because we are called to make disciples, not converts, we also need to be equipped to lead those who receive Christ as Savior and Lord through the basic steps of discipleship and growth as new believers.

Consider what would happen if every evangelical Christian led just one person to faith in Christ each year. If we began with only twelve committed Christians and each of them led one person to Christ and discipled that person, next year there would be twenty-four believers. If each of them in turn led one person to Christ and discipled that person, the third year there would be forty-eight believers. If this process continued, it would take less than thirty years to evangelize the six billion or more people alive today on planet Earth! If in the same time frame the population doubled, it would take only one additional year.^l

Many people today run from church to church in search of the ultimate experience. No experience, however, can compare with that of the Holy Spirit working through you in the process of bringing someone to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.

—Hank Hanegraaff

Hank Hanegraaff is president of the Christian Research Institute and host of the Bible Answer Man broadcast heard daily throughout the United States and Canada. For a list of stations airing the Bible Answer Man, or to listen online, log on to www.equip.org.

Is it possible to write a review that is at the same time sympathetic and critical? I hope so, because that is my goal with Richard Stearns’s The Hole in Our Gospel (Thomas Nelson, 2009). Stearns, the president of World Vision, has written a book that is winsome, compelling, and often inspiring. The Hole in Our Gospel is also theologically flawed and economically misguided. In other words, I have some serious criticisms of the book, but its overall charge to care for the poor and put our faith into action is a good and necessary challenge.

The Hole in Our Gospel tries to answer the question, “What does God expect of us?” Stearns argues that God expects more from us than going to church, saying a few prayers, avoiding the big sins, and believing the right things. “The idea behind The Hole in Our Gospel is quite simple. It’s basically the belief that being a Christian, or follower of Jesus Christ, requires much more than just having a personal and transforming relationship with God. It also entails a public and transforming relationship with the world” (p. 2, emphasis in original). God changed the world two thousand years ago with twelve men, and He can do it again—if only we will give ourselves fully to the task of being the good news, and bring compassion and justice to a world ravaged by disease, hunger, and oppression.

It’s hard not to like Richard Stearns. His love for Jesus Christ and the church is evident. His concern for “the least of these” and disdain for many aspects of the American Dream are admirable. His tone, even in rebuke, is warm and humble. No doubt, World Vision is doing a lot of work near to the heart of God. And Stearns, no doubt, is on the side of the angels. There is a lot to be gained from reading The Hole in Our Gospel. But there are also a number of problems with Stearns’s book. Let me mention three.

Moral Proximity. In the worthwhile effort to get us to care about suffering around the world and not just suffering in our own lives, Stearns overshoots his mark and disallows any degrees of moral proximity. To have more compassion for someone closer to us geographically, socially, or culturally, Stearns argues, is to value one human life over another (107). Though he’s no fan of Peter Singer (the controversial ethicist from Princeton), he quotes from him approvingly, affirming Singer’s principle that moral responsibility cannot take into account proximity or distance (111). So Stearns asks (I’m paraphrasing): Why don’t we respond to other people’s kids like they are our kids? Why don’t we help starving people in Africa like we would if they were literally left on our doorstep? Does God have different compassion for different people in different parts of the world?

Stearns wants to shake us out of our apathy. Good, but this is not the way to do it. I’m not even sure Stearns really believes the implications of his argument. The fact of the matter is that we do care for our own children in a special way. Our hearts do break more for our friends than for people we’ve never met. This doesn’t mean we automatically think those other people are worth less to God. It just means we are human. Jesus didn’t weep at the sight of every illness or death, but He did weep when His friend Lazarus died (John 11:35). It is an impossible burden to think that we are obligated to help every orphan in the world like we should help the child drowning in the pool in front of us. Let’s stir up compassion, but let’s not burden each other with false guilt because we feel a special sense of obligation to help our friends, our family, and those next door. The renewed cry for social justice in our day will only be a helpful corrective to middle-class lethargy if the social justice advocates don’t exaggerate our failures and don’t overstate their case from Scripture.

In a similar vein, Stearns is quick to turn commands meant for the church into commands to care for the whole world. He dismisses the idea that the “least of these” in Matthew 25 refers to other Christians or even traveling missionaries, despite the use of the word “brother” (292–93). Elsewhere he concludes: “The Bible is clear from the Old Testament through the New Testament that God’s people always had a responsibility to see that everyone in their society was cared for at a basic-needs level” (123). This is an important conclusion for Stearns because it means that poverty is a justice issue. But there’s nothing in either Testament to suggest that Christians must see that everyone in society—including all those outside the covenant community—are to be cared for at a basic-needs level. This is not to discourage Christians from helping non-Christians. It does mean, however, that the church is not responsible for the redistribution of a society’s resources. Do good to everyone, the Bible teaches, and especially to those of the household of faith (Gal. 6:10).

The Hole in Our Economics. Stearns perpetuates a number of economic fallacies and half-truths. First, he argues, via Jimmy Carter, that the growing gap between the rich and the poor is the root cause underneath most of the world’s unresolved problems (98). Although Stearns says in one place that we are not to blame for the poverty of the developing world (123), this note is missing throughout the rest of the book. For example, he leads off Part 3 with John Berger’s claim that “the poverty of our century is unlike that of any other. It is not, as poverty was before, the result of natural scarcity, but of a set of priorities imposed upon the rest of the world by the rich” (95). So is poverty in the two-thirds world our fault or not?

Second, the way Stearns employs statistics is misleading. He states that “the wealthiest 7 people on earth control more wealth than the combined GDP of the 41 most heavily indebted nations.” But why say “control” instead of “earned” or “created”? He tells us that “the top 20 percent of the world’s population consumes 86 percent of the world’s goods” (122). But why not give statistics on what percentage of the world’s goods that twenty percent also creates? I’m sure many rich people are rapacious goons, but it is unhelpful to frame the numbers as if wealth were a zero-sum game. Stearns argues that “the wealthiest countries, where just one-fifth of the world’s population lives, spend 90 percent of the world’s health care dollars, allowing the remaining four-fifths of the planet to spend only 10 percent of the money” (141). This makes it sound like there is a fixed pie of health care dollars and all the rich countries raided the pie before the poor countries had a chance to get to the table. This is bad logic and bad economics.

Third, Stearns continues to argue for more government aid. He suggests that if the rich nations would only divert five percent of the military expenditures into aid, another billion people could be lifted out of extreme poverty (158). Not only does this ignore the possibility that military expenditure can actually help the poor, it overlooks the mounting evidence from people such as William Easterly (The White Man’s Burden) and Dambisa Moyo (Dead Aid), that governmental aid in places like Africa is more problem than solution.

Getting the Gospel Right. Lastly, and more significantly, The Hole in Our Gospel marginalizes what is central to the gospel. To be fair, Stearns acknowledges that reconciliation between God and man through the atoning work of Christ is part of the gospel (15). But the whole gospel, says Stearns over and over, is God’s vision for a new way of living (276). The “essence” of the good news is that God’s kingdom is going to begin on earth through the changed lives of His followers. But Stearns doesn’t make clear how one enters this kingdom, or that the in-breaking of the kingdom is bad news for those who oppose God and do not trust in Jesus Christ. No doubt, Stearns would agree with the apostle Paul that the gospel is the good news that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that He was buried, and that He was raised from the dead and appeared to many witnesses (1 Cor. 15:3-8). But what Paul labels “as of first importance,” I hear Stearns demeaning as a diminished gospel (279).

It seems that for Stearns the gospel is primarily something we do. The gospel is not an announcement of what God has done for us in history. The gospel is a “social revolution” (20). At one point, after quoting 2 Corinthians 5:20 that we are “Christ’s ambassadors as though God were making his appeal through us,” Stearns says, “God chose us to be His representatives. He called us to go out, to proclaim the ‘good news’—to be the ‘good news’—and to change the world” (3). This is certainly a curious gloss on what it means for God to make His appeal through us.

Frankly, for all its laudable exhortations, I find Stearns’s gospel exhausting and even triumphalistic and paternalistic at times. I can’t count all the times in the book we are told to change the world, start a social revolution, or usher in the kingdom of God. If only we gave more or had the will, we could eradicate hunger and win the war on poverty. For the first time in history we have the know-how and access to solve these problems, we are told. Now we just have to make it happen. The church around the world is waiting for us to act. Without our efforts and resources directed toward the developing world, their lot in life will never improve. According to Stearns, “This is not to be a far-off and distant kingdom to be experienced only in the afterlife. Christ’s vision was of a redeemed world order populated by redeemed people—now…It’s up to us. We are to be the change” (243–44, emphasis in original). Does God’s reign and rule really depend on us?

I think I know where Stearns is coming from. He wants our faith to work. He wants Christians to care about the world and not just about their “fire insurance.” I get that. I applaud that. He should be more careful in talking about the gospel, however, lest it become a generic message about how God is going to make the world a better place. “Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words” (23) is not a helpful saying. Besides the fact that there’s no record that St. Francis ever said this and every indication that he didn’t live this way, the pithy saying represents a confusion of categories. We must use words if we are to preach the gospel, because the gospel is a message we must proclaim. If we never live like Christians, we are not Christians. But to tell people that they must repent and believe in Jesus for the remission of sins, to tell them that God sent His Son in love to bear His just wrath, to tell them that they must receive the kingdom in faith like little children, is not a gospel with a hole in it. It is preciselythe center, and Stearns’s call to action would have been more compelling if it more clearly radiated from there.

—Kevin DeYoung

Kevin DeYoung is the senior pastor at University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan. A graduate of Hope College and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Kevin is the author of Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion (Moody, 2009), Just Do Something: A Liberating Approach to Finding God’s Will (Moody, 2009), and The Good News We Almost Forgot (Moody, 2010).

Angels and Demons, Ron Howard’s recent movie based on Dan Brown’s novels, is another Christophobic, slanderous attack on faith and reason. The movie, which features an anti-religious zealot posing as a pseudo-intellectual professor, attacks those who have strong faith in God, Jesus Christ, and the biblical accounts of God’s interaction with His creation.

For example, although the movie’s dialogue has some positive statements about faith in Jesus Christ, the person making many of these statements is the real villain, a mad clergyman who is the most conservative Christian in the movie. The movie ultimately conveys the impression that Christians throughout history are mostly a bunch of well-meaning but bumbling fools, with a few really bad guys and hypocrites thrown in.

Both the book and the movie promulgate the erroneous belief that science and religion are always at odds. In upholding this view, the movie clearly subscribes to an atheistic definition of science that denies the existence of God.

For example, the movie falsely alleges that the Catholic Church executed four scientists for their scientific theories. However, as Professor Thomas Lessl of the University of Georgia notes in his article “The Galileo Legend,” only one scientist was put to death by a public authority before the twentieth century—chemist Antoine Lavoisier, executed during the French Revolution. Lessl adds that the secular, anti-clerical, leftist tyrants of the French Revolution also closed the nation’s Academy of Science.

The movie also claims that the Catholic Church condemned Galileo as a heretic because of his view that the earth revolved around the sun. However, Lessl and other major academics have proven that Galileo was put under house arrest by church officials for theological and political reasons, not because of his scientific theories. In fact, opposition to Galileo and his theory about the earth revolving around the sun was actually started by some science philosophers and academics of his day who favored scientific theories of Aristotle and other pagan philosophers that Galileo and other Christian scientists rejected. Thus, the church did not start the persecution of Galileo; it was started by “science” itself!

As Jeffrey Burton Russell explains, these phony historical incidents are examples of the attempt, by anti-religious bigots in the scientific community, to create the false idea of an “eternal war between science (good) and religion (bad) throughout Western history.”¹ To the contrary, as journalist George Sim Johnston notes, it was actually the theological worldview of medieval Christianity that “made modern science possible in the first place.”² Adds Johnston, based on his extensive review of the writings of such modern philosophers of science as Stanley Jaki, “It was the insistence on the rationality of God and His creation by St. Thomas Aquinas and other Catholic thinkers that paved the way for Galileo and Newton.”

Truth, morality, and science have no intellectual or logical foundation on which to stand without a firm faith in the existence of an all-powerful, omniscient, eternal, transcendent, and bene volent personal God. This logic tells us that, since such a Creator God must exist, then the miracle of Jesus Christ’s physical death and resurrection can be empirically tested and historically confirmed. This is exactly what history, archeology, geography, and ancient written documents, including extrabiblical documents, have proven.

It is time for Christians to counter lovingly but firmly the slanderous attacks against their faith in the mass media instead of ignoring them or, even worse, acquiescing to them. “The Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will” (2 Tim. 2:24–26 NIV).³

—Ted Baehr and Tom Snyder

Ted Baehr, J.D. and L.H.D., is founder and chairman of The Christian Film and Television Commission and publisher of Movie guide: The Family Guide to Movies and Entertainment. Baehr is the author of numerous books, including The Culture-Wise Family with Pat Boone (Crossway Books, 2007).

Tom Snyder, Ph.D., is editor of Movieguide and author of Myth Conceptions (Baker Books, 1995).

notes

1 Jeffrey Burton Russell, “The Myth of the Flat Earth,” The American Scientific AffiliationConference, August 4, 1997, at Westmont College.

2 George Sim Johnston, “The Galileo Affair,” The Catholic Education Resource Center,http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0005.html.

3 For more information and a complete review of the movie Angels and Demons, please visitwww.movieguide.org.

For centuries, the mystery of the Incarnation has served as a source of wonder for Christians and an insurmountable obstacle for unbelievers. How can a man be God and yet stillbe fully man? Could God become man without losing His deity?The early church recognized Jesus Christ as possessing twonatures in one person, stating at the Council of Chalcedon thatHe was “at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood,truly God and truly man.”² However, the human mind cannotfully grasp how Christ could be both God and human: a perfectunion in one person of two distinct and unique natures that areseemingly opposite but in no way nullify or suppress one another.

This paradox of the Incarnation has led to countless alter native theories, many of which appeal to Scripture for their proofand support. One of the most common theories proposes that Jesuswas not actually God, but only human, and Philippians 2:6–7 isoften used as a proof text for this theory. The Jehovah’s Witnessesare particularly vocal proponents of this idea. To address thisspecific question regarding the person of Jesus, we need tounderstand both the argument of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and themeaning of Philippians 2:6–7.

Understanding the Jesus of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. In aneffort to make their faith more tenable and reasonable, Jehovah’sWitnesses broke with the traditional understanding of Jesus Christand instead argue that He was not God at all, but was merely aman. Two of their fundamental beliefs about the origin andidentity of Jesus are as follows: (1) Jesus is not God, rather Hewas God’s first creation. Regarding Jesus’ life on earth, the WatchTower Society states, “In every period of his [Jesus’] existence,whether in heaven or on earth, his speech and conduct reflectsubordination to God. God is always the superior, Jesus the lesserone who was created by God.”³ (2) On earth, Jesus was onlyhuman with no claim to deity. He was “not an incarnation, not agod-man, but a perfect man, ‘lower than angels.’”⁴

This is a succinct summary of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’beliefs about Jesus, especially regarding His earthly life andministry. Their literature is very adamant about Jesus’ inferiorityas compared to Jehovah God, with one article clearly stating,“The Father and the Son were not equal before Jesus came to theearth or during his earthly life.”⁵ In defending this view, Jehovah’sWitnesses use Philippians 2:6–7 to simultaneously refute Jesus’deity and prove His humanity.

Understanding Jesus’ Deity. Paul begins Philippians 2:6 byasserting that Jesus was “in the form of God.” In using this phrase, Paul does not mean that Jesus externally resembled God or that He was a mere representation of God. The Greek word morph (form) should not be understood in external, physical terms, but in ontological terms. The NIV captures this meaning with its translation of verse 6: “being in very nature God.” Paul uses the word morph to point to a deep theological truth. Jesus did not merely possess divine characteristics; He was God. Before describing any of Jesus’ other attributes or actions, Paul begins with the most important: Jesus’ deity.

Correctly interpreting the first phrase of verse six is critical for understanding the second phrase: “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” Jehovah’s Witnesses use this phrase to support their belief that Jesus was inferior to God, which is expressed in their faulty translation of verse six: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God” (NWT). One article states that this verse demonstrates “that Jesus did not think it was appropriate [to be equal to God].”⁶

These interpretations ignore Paul’s emphasis that Jesus is God. Acknowledging Jesus’ deity is essential in understanding the rest of verse six, which presupposes Jesus’ equality with God. Therefore, in this verse the word “grasped” should not be interpreted as an attempt to acquire or safeguard equality with God. In fact, Paul’s account reveals that Jesus’ actions are the opposite of “grasping.” Instead of selfishly exploiting His equality with God, Jesus instead uses it to redeem fallen humanity. He adds humanity to His deity,providing a powerful example of humility and self-sacrifice: “He who was God and never ceased to be otherwise humbled himself in the incarnation.”⁷ This is the progression of Philippians 2:6–7. After emphasizing Jesus’ deity, Paul addresses Jesus’ humanity.

Understanding Jesus’ Humanity. Philippians 2:7 earned its place in the debates regarding the humanity of Jesus Christ because of its use of the Greek word ekenosen. The NRSV and NASB translate ekenosen as “to empty,” which results in the phrase, “he emptied himself.” This translation of ekenosen laid the foundation for the idea that Jesus emptied Himself of His deity, so that He was neither God nor divine, but only man. Since the exegesis of this verse hinges on the translation of one verb, it is crucial to under stand whether ekenosen is functioning literally or figuratively in Philippians 2:7.

Did Paul mean that Christ literally emptied Himself of His deity, or is he metaphorically describing the Incarnation? In order to answer this question, the usage of kenoo (the root of ekenosen) in the New Testament must be examined. The verb kenoo appears in only four other New Testament verses, each time at the hand of Paul: Romans 4:14, 1 Corinthians 1:17, 1 Corinthians 9:15, and 2 Corinthians 9:3. In Romans 4:14, Paul claims that for those who follow the law, “faith is null.” Here kenoo is used to figuratively describe how faith is of no value, account, or significance for those who are relying on the law for salvation. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, if Paul used the verb kenoo literally, the English translation would only read, “lest the cross of Christ be emptied.” Both the NIV and the ESV, however, translate the end of this verse as, “lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” In adding the phrase “of its power,” translators recognize Paul’s original intent to use kenoo metaphorically. His fear is not that the cross would be literally empty, but that human eloquence would undermine the significance of the cross of Christ. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 9:15 and 2 Corinthians 9:3, Paul uses kenoo figuratively. In each of these four occurrences of kenoo, Paul eschews the literal meaning of the word for its evocative figurative interpretation. Since kenoo is a rare verb in the New Testament—used five times and only by Paul—and is clearly used figuratively in four of these occurrences, there is overwhelming linguistic evidence for a figurative interpretation in Philippians 2:7 as well.⁸

The specific usage of kenoo in Philippians 2:7, moreover, supports a figurative interpretation. Paul uses the final two phrases of the verse to expound on the meaning of ekenosen: Christ did not literally empty Himself of anything, but He made Himself of no worldly significance when He took “the form of a servant” and was “born in the likeness of men.” Literal interpretations of kenoo twist the meaning of this passage. Paul’s intent was not to show his readers how Christ became man, but to reveal Jesus’ refusal to exploit what was inherently His and instead humble Himself by becoming man in order to redeem humanity. Through verse seven, Paul provides the Philippians a beautiful illustration of the Incarnation, not a thorough explanation of how the Incarnation took place. In light of this context and the linguistic evidence of kenoo, it is clear that Paul is not using ekenosen to claim that Christ emptied Himself of anything, but to instead metaphorically describe the Incarnation.⁹

Understanding the Jesus of Philippians 2:6–7. Paul’s fundamental beliefs about the identity of Jesus Christ in these verses blatantly contradict those of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. In verse six, Paul demonstrates that Jesus is God, existing in the same form as Him and equal to Him, possessing the same nature and character. This statement directly opposes the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ first assertion, that Jesus is not God. In verse seven, Paul strongly contrasts the idea of holding on to equality with God with what Jesus actually did: He “made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” Jesus does not use His equality with God to further His own interest or to secure His eternal position, but instead, leverages it on behalf of sinful humanity. As has already been proved, He does not cease to be God, but retains the “form of God” and, according to Philippians 2:8, is “found in human form”: two natures perfectly united in one person. Paul makes it clear that Christ was both the “form of God” and “found in human form.” Using Paul’s logic, in order to assert Christ’s humanity, one must also acknowledge His deity. This mystery of the Incarnation expressed by Paul refutes the Jehovah’s Witnesses second belief: on Earth, Jesus was only human, with no claim to deity.

In Philippians 2:6–7, Paul presents a balanced, complete view of Christ: fully God and fully man. To maintain the truth of Christ’s humanity while at the same time denying the truth of His deity is to rob the Incarnation of its awesome power. He who eternally is God became fully man in order to fully redeem mankind. Truly God and truly man, what a glorious mystery!

—Kristen Forbes

Kristen Forbes holds an M.Div. from Gordon-Conwell Theo logical Seminary and currently works in youth ministry in Matthews, North Carolina.

notes

1 Unless otherwise noted, all quotations are from the English Standard Version.

2 From the Chalcedonian Creed, available at http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/ChalcedonianCreed.htm.

3 The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, “Is God Always Superior to Jesus?” http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/article_06.htm.

4 Ibid, “What Does the Bible Say about God and Jesus?” http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/article_05.htm.

5 “Is Jesus God Almighty?” The Watchtower, September 15, 2005, http://www.watchtower.org/e/20050915/diagram_01.htm.

6 The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, “What about Trinity Proof Texts?”http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/article_08.htm.

7 Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 216.

8 Ibid, 217.

9 The NIV and the ESV recognize this original intent in their translation “made himself nothing.”

Synopsis

Many people, especially Christians, have serious questions about divorce and remarriage. As the American family appears to be imploding with divorce, and as blended families become a major challenge to negotiate and develop by those who remarry, it is wise for us to examine again Paul’s instructions about divorce and remarriage in First Corinthians 7.

When may a person biblically and ethically divorce a spouse and remarry another? Marriage is founded upon the biblical basis of a covenant. Violations of the marriage covenant may lead to the dissolution of the marriage covenant. Paul clearly sets forth this underlying assumption and then develops an inspired hermeneutic for dealing with troubled marriages and the questions surrounding divorce for Christians.

We live in a broken world, and everything in this world is broken as well. In the creation, God formed a perfect world and declared it all “very good” (Gen. 1:31, ESV)¹. The basic parameters of life, set forth in the creation in Genesis, chapters 1 and 2, have been damaged by the human fall into sin. Man’s dominion over creation; gender identity and roles; love, marriage, and child-rearing; domestic life in the home; community solidarity and safety; and the value and sanctity of human life have all been damaged by sin (as is evidenced in Genesis 3 ff., and the evening news on ABC, FOX, or CNN). Paul David Tripp metaphorically likens our world to an old, broken-down house:

The world you live in is a lot like that broken-down house. Every single room has been dirtied and damaged by sin. Not one part of it shines with anything like the pure glory that was so evident when it was first made. Sin has left this world in a sorry condition. You see it everywhere you look.

You see it in great cities and small communities. You see it in the environment, blighted by pollution and misuse. You see it in government, often focused more on caring for itself than on serving the people. You see it in entertainment that replaces what is truly beautiful with what is essentially pornography. You see it in the family, as the place designed for growth and protection often becomes a source of life’s greatest hurts. You see it in a staggering, diseased economy that has finally exhausted itself after decades of financial debauchery. You see it in art and culture that often debases the very concept of beauty. You see it in history, with instance after instance of man’s inhumanity to man. You see it in each life as we all struggle with physical, emotional, spiritual, and relational brokenness every day.²

Of all God’s ordinances and institutions marred by sin and teetering from spiritual and moral decay, perhaps none bears the marks of damage as much as marriage. Studies, both public and private, religious and secular, surrounding the condition of marriages in America are legion. Those of a conservative, biblical, and historic Protestant theology are greatly alarmed by the social indicators that do not bode well for the institution of marriage.³ Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association wrote back in 2004:

In my lifetime I have seen changes I would never have dreamed would occur in our nation. We have abortion on demand, including partial birth abortion. Pornography is everywhere, from comic books to the Internet, reaching nearly every home in our country. Gambling is a state-run business promoted to our youth and our poor. The work ethic has been devalued. Divorce has played havoc with the social structure. The list goes on and on.

Now comes the biggest and—if we don’t win—the last battle: homosexual marriage. The fact is, radical homosexuals don’t really want marriage. What they want is approval for a perverted lifestyle. And if marriage is destroyed in the process, so be it. And yet politicians, businesses, even some church leaders have jumped on the bandwagon. ⁴

Lest Wildmon be accused of narrow-minded censoriousness toward those of “alternative views,” I would remind the reader that the protection of heterosexual marriage benefits society at large—not just the evangelical church. James Dobson of Focus on the Family Ministries gives us a well-balanced, historically valid, and professional opinion when he summarizes the benefits of solid marriages:

In short, marriage, when it functions as intended, is good for everyone—for men, for women, for children, for the community, for the nation, and for the world. Marriage is the means by which the human race is propagated, and the means by which spiritual teaching is passed down through the generations. Research consistently shows that heterosexual married adults do better in virtually every measure of emotional and physical health than people who are divorced or never married. They live longer and have happier lives. They recover from illness more quickly, earn and save more money, are more reliable employees, suffer less stress, and are less likely to become victims of any kind of violence. They find the job of parenting more enjoyable, and they have more satisfying and fulfilling sex lives.⁵

What may surprise many is this statement: the greatest threat to marriages in America is not homosexuality, same-sex marriages, feminism, or premarital sex, but rather divorce. Unbiblical divorce constitutes the major sinful pattern in our broken world, threatening the preservation of life’s first and most basic institution. So prevalent is divorce today that church members divorce at the same rate and percentage as nonchurched individuals. My own denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), approved a study on the subject of divorce and remarriage and adopted the Position Paper on Divorce and Remarriage⁶. This position paper began with these words:

The PCA reaffirms that sex is a gift from God which should be expressed only in marriage between a man and a woman. Therefore all sexual intercourse outside marriage, including homosexuality and lesbianism, is contrary to God’s Word (the Bible), and is sin. We acknowledge that the Bible declares that those who continuously and unrepentantly sin shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, and we sorrow for their plight. Yet we also joyfully acknowledge that God in the Gospel of Jesus Christ forgives repentant sinners and welcomes such forgiven, cleansed and changed sinners into the Church of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 6:9–11)⁷.

The PCA acknowledges that marriage and the church exist within a broken world. The church also recognizes that both God’s law and God’s grace must shape and guide our understanding of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. As such, the Westminster Confession of Faith (the PCA doctrinal standards) reflects the biblical teaching that permits divorce for two reasons- adultery and irreconcilable desertion:

Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage: wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case. (Westminster Confession of Faith 24–26)⁸

These two reasons for legitimate divorce are clearly set forth by Jesus Christ (Matt. 5, 19) and His apostles (1 Cor.7) in the New Testament. Adultery and desertion remain the only two explicit reasons whereby a person may divorce a spouse. The traditional and historic understanding of this “biblical divorce” doctrine was set forth clearly by the Princeton theologian and professor, Alexander A. Hodge, in 1869: “The divine law as to divorce is, that marriage is a contract for life between one man and one woman, and that it is, ipso facto, dissolved only by death (Rom. vii, 2, 3); and that the only causes upon which any civil authority can dissolve the union of those whom God has joined together are (a.) adultery, (b.) willful, causeless, and incurable desertion.”⁹

I will briefly examine these two reasons for divorce, and their implications for marriage and remarriage, by looking at the biblical texts and their teachings, which are relevant to today.

Divorce Due to Adultery

Jesus Christ Himself is the first in the New Testament to refine the Jewish practice, instituted by Moses, which allowed for divorce. Twice Christ qualified and greatly restricted the practices of rabbinical Judaism in His day. The rabbis had developed a convoluted way in which a man could divorce his wife. They succumbed to cultural and pagan pressures to relax even further Moses’ instructions in the law (Torah). In Deuteronomy 24:1–4, the lawgiver set forth this perpetual statute:

When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.

Fourteen centuries later, Moses’ words, “if she then finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her,” had been interpreted in the broadest sense of the phrase to mean anything that might displease a husband (e.g., being a poor cook, hard to get along with, barren and unable to bear children, overweight, old, etc.). One can only imagine both the frivolous reasons concocted by unloving husbands and the unjust treatment meted out to faithful wives due to this rabbinic interpretation. The rabbis focused only on the “letter of the law”—in this case, making sure the divorce certificate was filled out, filed, and prosecuted properly. The heart and spirit of the law was lost in its legalistic mechanics. Keep in mind that the rabbinical rules benefited only the husband and not the wife.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ brings such chauvinistic abuses to marriage to a screeching halt. In His reiteration and reinterpretation of God’s law, Jesus says the following: “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matt. 5:31–32).

What Christ meant by this was simple. The Holy Spirit used two distinct Greek words in relating to the Apostles the essence of Christ’s teachings and the Scripture we now possess. Each Greek word related to a family of Greek words used to express ideas about illicit sex, referring to sex outside the bounds of a monogamous marriage. Here is what Christ literally said: “Everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of porneia (sexual immorality), makes her moichao (commit adultery). And anyone who marries a divorced woman (i.e., one who has been divorced for other cause than adultery, or who divorces her husband for other cause than adultery) moichao (commits adultery himself).” Understanding these two Greek words is very important in our interpretation of Christ’s teaching on divorce and remarriage.

The first word (porneia) comes from a family of words used to describe illicit sex outside the bounds of a legal and monogamous marriage. Both Greco-Roman law and Jewish law highly valued the institution of marriage. The Greek language reflects these values. This family of porn-words describes all types of illicit sex. The Greek verb porneuo (to fornicate) is related to the Greek words porneo(harlot), pornos (fornicator), and porneia (fornication).

The second word is more specific. Moichao is a verb used for adultery in marriage. It meant to “have sex with someone other than your spouse to whom you are married.” The cognate of the verb, moicheia, always referred to adultery, and nothing else.

So here is what Jesus says: “If a man divorces his wife for other reason than that she engaged in sexual immorality, and was sexually unfaithful to him, and if he marries another, he commits adultery because he is still married to his first and faithful wife in God’s eyes, and in society’s as well. And if he puts a sexually faithful wife away, and she then marries another man, he has forced her into an illicit marriage, and this too is therefore a form of adultery.”

Later in His ministry, Jesus expounded on this viewpoint in Matthew 19:1–12. Again, the issue of divorce is raised by the crowd. The Pharisees ask Jesus, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” Jesus is frank and clear. He explains four things to the Pharisees and those listening to their discourse.

1. From the beginning of creation, God had always intended a marriage to be between one man and one woman, in a lifetime commitment. Christ references Genesis 2:18–25.2. Moses did not prescribe Deuteronomy 24:1–4, at the inspiration of God, in order to loosen the demands of marriage but rather to restrict divorces. It was the “hardness of the heart” that was in view in Deuteronomy 24:1–4. In other words, the “certificate of divorce” was intended to make divorce more difficult to obtain, not to facilitate dissolutions of marriage.3. Only porneia or moicheia (sex outside of marriage) are the acceptable grounds for divorce.4. Those who divorce other than for sexual infidelity will commit moicheia (adultery).

My wife and I have recently returned from Nairobi, Kenya, a society much troubled by polygamy. We traveled there at the invitation of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Kibera, in order to speak at a marriage conference. I must admit that I was surprised by the questions asked me during this week of biblical preaching and teaching:-“My husband has taken a second and now a third wife. Am I free to leave him and seek a divorce?”-“My husband is legally married to me, but back in his home village, he has a second wife—a tribal marriage, though not official. Can I divorce him?”-“My wife and I are not legally married. As in most Kenyan marriages, we have just lived together. I no longer want my wife. Am I free to leave her?”-“My husband has repeatedly had forced sex with our thirteen-year-old daughter. Can I leave him over this?”-“My husband has had sex with animals. These encounters have been verified by another woman in our village. I have separated from him for the past two months. He says the Devil makes him do it. May I divorce him over this?”-“My husband has AIDS. I do not…yet. May I divorce him to protect myself and my daughters?”-“My husband likes to have sex with men. Do I have to remain with him or am I free to divorce and remarry?”

“Incredible!” you say? So it is. But real, nevertheless. All of these situations reflect three realities:

1. The distortion of marriage due to cultural norms and practices directly at odds with God’s Word.2. Gross violations of the central issue in a covenant of marriage: sexual fidelity.3. The presence of sexual immorality (porneia) that constitutes permissible grounds for divorce.

We in America may not practice such base, tribalistic forms of unbridled sexual lusts, but in substance we violate the sanctity of marriage to the same degree as these Kenyans.

Multiple marriages and divorces are nothing short of “serial polygamy.” Incest, rape, and molestation are not infrequent in American families. Homosexuality is on the rise and fornication is as common as dating and often assumed to go hand-in-hand. Pornography, graphic movies, lewd dress, and a pitiful preoccupation with sex characterize our culture. AIDS is a growing concern. The Internet includes Web sites advocating legal polygamy. How are we so different from “primitive” Kenya?

John Calvin, in Book Two of his famous Institutes of the Christian Religion, explains to us the importance of the seventh commandment: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exod. 20:14 and Deut. 5:18). He comments:

The purpose of this commandment is: because God loves modesty and purity, all uncleanness must be far from us. To sum up, then: we should not become defiled with any filth or lustful intemperance of the flesh. To this corresponds the affirmative commandment that we chastely and continently regulate all parts of our life. But he expressly forbids fornication, to which all lust tends, in order through the foulness of fornication, which is grosser and more palpable, in so far as it brands the body also with its mark, to lead us to abominate all lust.Therefore, the Lord sufficiently provided for us in this matter when he established marriage, the fellowship of which, begun on his authority, he also sanctified by his blessing. From this it is clear that any other union apart from marriage is accursed in his sight; and that the companionship of marriage has been ordained as a necessary remedy to keep us from plunging into unbridled lust.10

Divorce Due to Desertion

The church recognizes one other biblical ground for a legitimate divorce: willful desertion that cannot be remedied. Jesus did not speak of this ground for divorces, but His apostle, Paul of Tarsus, did, in 1 Corinthians 7. Some view this ground as inferior to that of adultery, and a few even reject willful desertion as a biblical ground for divorce. One’s view of Scripture will affect one’s view on this issue. If a person accepts the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures, then it cannot stand that what Jesus said in Matthew carries more authority than what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians. Both men spoke from God (2 Pet. 1:21) and both men complement each other’s teaching in reflecting the Holy Spirit’s inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

In fact, Paul makes it quite clear that the Lord Jesus Christ led him to certain ideas about marriage, desertion, and divorce, while in other places he spoke from his own understanding of the will of God. In both cases, we have the reliable Word of God: the words of Christ while He was on earth, and the words of the Holy Spirit speaking through the apostle Paul (cf. v. 40). Our understanding of Scripture, therefore, places Christ’s and Paul’s statements on equal ground. Both are the inspired Word of God. If one accepts the inspiration of the New Testament, then one must accept that willful and impenitent desertion is a ground for divorce equal to that of adultery. Here is what Paul wrote concerning desertion and divorce in 1 Corinthians 7:10–16:

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Paul’s instructions are straightforward, if not obvious at first glance. He sets forth four principles concerning marriage, desertion, and divorce.

1. Generally, husbands and wives should not leave (desert) or seek to divorce their spouses (1 Cor. 7:10–11).2. If a person leaves a spouse for a reason other than adultery, that person should:a. be reconciled to his/her spouse;b. if not, he/she should remain separated without seeking divorce andc. without remarrying another person (1 Cor. 7:11).3. If a Christian is married to an unbeliever (non-Christian person), the believer should not leave nor put away the unbelieving spouse, if that spouse is content to remain married (1 Cor. 7:12–14, 16).4. If an unbelieving spouse leaves and seeks a divorce, then the Christian in that marriage is “not enslaved” (i.e., not bound to remain married), and may divorce the absentee spouse after indication is given that the absent spouse does not intend to return to the marriage (1 Cor. 7:15).

In summary, Paul teaches that Christians, even those “unequally yoked with unbelievers” (2 Cor. 6:14), should always do all they can to preserve their marriages, both for the honor of Christ and for the spiritual good of spouse and children (1 Cor. 7:14). But if the non-Christian spouse decides either to desert the marriage or to seek divorce, the Christian does not need to work to preserve the marriage. The believer is free to grant a divorce or seek a divorce on the basis of “willful desertion”; and, having been granted that divorce, is free to remarry—but only to a fellow Christian. The deserted and divorced spouse falls into the same category as a widowed person: free to remarry, but “only in the Lord,” that is, to another Christian (1 Cor. 7:39–40).

Some may say, “Well, isn’t this rather utilitarian! A Christian operates by a set of rules that always benefits him, but never the non-Christian spouse! Is this not horrible revisionism of God’s law and that which Jesus taught?” I will admit that at first glance Paul’s teaching looks that way, but further reflection and study reveal quite the opposite.

Paul reviews in 1 Corinthians 7 the entire scope of the Christian view of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. He sets forth a very demanding and difficult charge to his fellow Christians: they were to remain married as much as possible and as long as possible, because the gospel of Christ has called us to peace (1 Cor. 7:15). In doing so, Paul sets forth several general guidelines.¹¹

Paul, in the spirit of Jesus Christ, seeks not to make divorce easier for people, but rather to regulate divorce in this broken world, hold Christians to a higher standard, while allowing for the fact that human depravity and sin may often make marriage impossible to sustain. Paul’s teaching, like Christ’s, reflects the beautiful combination of a high view of God’s law, a measure of sympathetic grace, and wisdom in the face of the realistic facts of life.

THE COVENANT BASIS OF MARRIAGE

Both Christ’s teaching on adultery and divorce and Paul’s instructions on desertion and divorce reflect God’s covenantal design for marriage. The Lord ordained marriage as a lifelong covenant between one man and one woman. In Scripture we can observe four purposes to this covenant:1. The spiritual partnership and mutual edification of husband and wife in pursuing the will of the Lord (Gen. 2:18–25; Eph. 5:22–33; 1 Pet. 3:1–7).2. The procreation of children and the nurture of the human family (Gen. 1:26–28).3. The development of spiritual intimacy and the fulfillment of sexual pleasures through conjugal love (Gen. 1:18–25).4. Protection against lusts, immorality, and sexual temptations (Prov. 5:15–23; 1 Cor. 7:1–9; 1 Thess. 4:1–12).

When we understand marriage as a covenant it follows that violations of any one of its four covenant purposes could constitute grounds for divorce. Adultery and willful desertion are obvious and potentially irreparable violations of covenant love. It would seem that there are other sins against marriage that could rise to the same level of covenant unfaithfulness as adultery and desertion, including physical abuse, refusal to work and support the family, illicit and illegal activities that threaten the safety of the family, refusal to engage in marital sex, refusal to bear or care for children, unrepentant addiction to pornography, alcoholism or drug abuse, forsaking the home for long periods of time unnecessarily, and engagement in occult activities or other spiritual actions harmful to the family. It could be argued that these violations of the marriage covenant may constitute biblical grounds for divorce, even though they are not specifically named as such in the New Testament.

In such cases, the church, through its ordained officers, must be engaged for advice, assistance, and biblical guidance. In the end, the dissolution of a marriage is never the decision of one aggrieved spouse. Just as it took four parties to contract the marriage—husband, wife, church, and state—so it will necessitate the interaction of the same four parties to dissolve the marriage. The goal, in every instance and situation, is not to make divorce easier, but rather to regulate divorce so as to honor God’s law, seek for the peace of the gospel, work for the grace of reconciliation and forgiveness, protect the innocent party from undue harm, and, when necessary, to dissolve the marriage in an orderly manner.

Such are the realities of marriage, divorce, and remarriage in a broken world. To accomplish God’s will in all of this, Christians will need to revamp the way they think about the covenant of marriage. Christians must reconcile themselves to a radical idea: God’s call to holiness in marriage trumps their own pursuit of happiness. Gary Thomas, in his book, Sacred Marriage, puts forth this challenge: “What if God didn’t design marriage to be ‘easier’? What if God had an end in mind that went beyond our happiness, our comfort, and our desire to be infatuated and happy as if the world were a perfect place? What if God designed marriage to make us holy more than to make us happy?”¹²

In a broken world, holiness may be more difficult to find than happiness. But such is our calling as Christians in marriage. We may not like that message, but it is biblical. As Paul wrote, “And I think I too have the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 7:40).

Michael F. Ross, M.Div., Columbia Biblical Seminary; D.Min., Reformed Theological Seminary, is senior minister of Christ Covenant Church, Matthews, North Carolina.

notes

1 All Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version.

2 Paul David Tripp, Broken-Down House: Living Productively in a World Gone Bad (Wapwallopen, PA: Shepherd Press, 2009), 17.

3 Mark Regnerus, “The Case for Early Marriage,” Christianity Today (August 2009), 23.

4 As quoted in James Dobson, Marriage under Fire (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Press, 2004),

5. 5 Ibid., 17.

6 “Position Papers” are the result of formal and in-depth studies of theological and moral issuesby pastors, elders, and theologians in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). These study committees are commissioned by our General Assembly as these needs arise. The resulting Position Papers are received and reviewed by a subsequent General Assembly, and then voted on by the body of assembly representatives from the local churches. Once approved, they hold no binding authority over the PCA, but rather reflect the mind of the denomination on a specific issue. They are published to help guide local churches concerning difficult issues.

7 Presbyterian Church of America, Paul Gilchrist, ed., “Divorce and Remarriage,” Digest of Position Papers: 1973–1993, part five (Atlanta: Christian Education and Publications, 1993), 182.

8 Presbyterian Church in America, Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 24, “Of Marriage and Divorce” (Atlanta: Christian Education and Publications, 1990), 81–82.

9 Alexander A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith: A Handbook of Christian Doctrine Expounding the Westminster Confession (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1978), 307–8.

10 John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion: 2.8.41, vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, Library of Christian Classics (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), 405–6.

11 See Charles Hodge’s summary of 1 Corinthians 7 in his Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1956), 107–8.

12 Gary Thomas, Sacred Marriage (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books, 2000), 13.

No matter how closely we may examine any one text, we must remember that it is but one movement in the symphony that is “Scripture” as a whole. The glorious balance and harmony of God’s revelation in Scripture is found in the entirety of its testimony. Only when we allow all the parts to speak, first in their own context, but then, together, without assuming (as is so often the case in Western culture today) contradiction, but allowing for harmonization, can we ever find the unified message of Scripture.

An Apparent Problem

When the immediate context of an author is ignored, it is very easy to make allegations of inconsistency and contradiction with other biblical writers. When two writers use similar language but in different contexts, insinuations of error and conflict will surely surface, especially from the pens of those who are seeking to overthrow biblical teaching. One of the classic examples of this is found in the repeated assertion by critics that there is a fundamental contradiction between the views of James and Paul on the matter of faith and works. Scholars often assert the contradiction as a given, almost never allowing for any harmonization of the two writers.

A fair analysis of the relevant texts, however, demonstrate that James and Paul are not, in fact, in conflict, but instead are teaching the same truths in two different contexts. The conflict is apparent, not real. It only appears as if there is contradiction, when the reality is quite different.

We begin with Paul’s assertion that we are justified in the sight of God by faith alone. This is the essence of his argumentation from Romans 3:21 through 5:1, but can be summarized in his statement, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Rom. 3:28).¹ Despite the modern attempt on the part of some to turn justification into a statement solely about church membership,² the reality is that Paul is addressing how those who find themselves justly condemned as sinners can find peace with God (Rom. 5:1). Paul teaches clearly in Romans and Galatians that God has made a way of peace through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and that all men, Jew and Gentile, must come to Him through this one gracious way. The receipt of this peace is by faith, so that it might be in accordance with grace (Rom. 4:16). No amount of law keeping can bring a person a right standing with God, for to Paul, the law brings a knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20, Gal. 3:23–24). It was never God’s purpose that the law be a means of obtaining righteousness. Instead, the one who breaks the law is condemned thereby (Gal. 3:10–11).

Paul’s primary proof of the fact of justification by faith apart from deeds of the law is Abraham (Rom. 4:1–3, Gen. 15:6). Since Abraham was justified before God by faith in the promises of God prior to any kind of legal obedience on his part (such as his receiving the sign of circumcision), the priority of the promise to law is established. It is just this example that raises the allegation of conflict with James.

James wrote to the primitive Christian community in its earliest days of existence. His letter is very much an “in house” epistle, one speaking to the necessity of living life in light of a new and altered reality. “In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures” (James 1:18). How, then, should we live? This is the focus of his epistle of exhortation.

It is in this context that he speaks of deedless faith, that oxymoronic attitude that says, “Yes, I believe, but I do not act in accordance with my confession.” He writes,

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Canthat³ faith save him?…So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? (James 2:14, 17–20 ESV)

This then leads to the assumed main point of conflict with Paul, that of the matter of Abraham. James writes, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness’ and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:21–24).

The contradiction seems obvious, at least in the minds of many. Paul says Abraham was justified before God by faith apart from deeds of the law. James says Abraham was justified by works and not by faith alone. This is a clear, patent, incontestable contradiction, taken by many to indicate a rupture in the early church, witnessed in the New Testament canon itself. Is it fair, however, to make such grand assumptions? Is there a compelling reason to accept such accusations of infidelity to the message of Christ on the part of Paul and James, especially when they themselves do not attest to such a problem?

Careful attention to the language of both writers leads us to recognize that this “apparent” contradiction does not exist in reality. In fact, if care is exercised in reading both writers in context, they are saying the very same things. Paul is not promoting a deedless faith. In fact, Paul often speaks of the importance of good works, and says God has ordained that believers produce good works (Eph. 2:10). He denies with force, however, that even the best works that man can produce can have any weight in justifying a person before God.

The key to accurately handing these texts is found in allowing James to define his own context. He is speaking against a deedless faith, a faith that is empty and without evidence of its existence. He decries the abnormality of the claim of faith that can give no evidence of its existence, just as he will decry the abnormality of a mouth that both blesses God and curses men.⁴ The contexts, then, of James and Paul differ fundamentally: Paul is speaking of how men are made right before God, James is warning the Christian community concerning the danger of deedless faith, a false faith that cannot save. The key phrase for James is “show me” (2:18). For him, true faith can prove its existence. He simply is not addressing the relationship of faith and works for salvation, but is instead addressing the necessity of deeds resulting from true saving faith. As to James’s use of Abraham, I have commented elsewhere,

It is the centrality of Abraham in Jewish national existence that causes James to refer to him, not an attempted counter-argument against a Pauline doctrine.…Indeed, polemicists who need to find in this passage a foundation for some kind of synergistic, works-salvation system, insist that the fact that James uses the identical term for “justified” and the identical phrase for “by works” (see, for example, Rom. 3:20, 4:2, Gal. 2:16) proves, beyond question, that we must read James’ use of these terms in the same context that Paul uses in Romans and Galatians. But we have already seen that James is arguing against a use of the word faith (a deedless, dead, empty, useless faith that exists only in the realm of words not of action) that is not paralleled in the Pauline passages that speak of how one is justified. Second, Paul speaks of justification before God (Gal. 3:11) or in His sight (Rom. 3:20) while the context of James is show me. The assertion that the verbal parallels over-ride the immediate contexts must be rejected for it has no basis. James’ use must be allowed to stand on its own. As a result, the translation of the original Greek term used by James in 2:21 as “shown to be righteous” or “considered righteous” (NIV) flows not from a pre-commitment to a theological perspective, but from the context itself.⁵

This is not theological gerrymandering. It involves the same careful examination of context, argument, and usage that any of us would demand for our own writings, and that must be logically and rationally demanded of the reading of any ancient document. Paul and James speak with one view regarding faith: Paul emphasizes its sufficiency to save without the addition of human merit, and James emphasizes that it is not a dead, deedless faith, but a faith that can prove its existence!

—James White

James White is an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, the Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, and the author of more than twenty books. He has taught in a wide variety of theological fields and engaged in more than seventy-five moderated public debates in defense of the Christian faith.

1 Except when otherwise noted Bible quotations are the author’s own translation.

2 This is the view of the so-called “New Perspective on Paul.” See Guy Prentiss Waters, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2004).

3 Note that the ESV and NASB (“that faith”), NIV (“such faith”), and NET (“this kind of faith”) all recognize the anaphoric use of the article in the original language,specifying a particular kind of deedless faith, just defined.

4 For a full discussion and exegesis of the text of James 2:14–26, see The God Who Justifies (Bethany House, 2001), 329–54. In this work I provide in-depth analysis of the context of James 2 especially as it relates to the deedless faith James is arguing against, and how this differs from Paul’s use of faith as the nonmeritorious embracing of the promises of God in Jesus Christ.

5 Ibid., 345–46. CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL

One of the most satisfying aspects of apologetics ministry is hearing from people who ask permission to use ministry material to begin an apologetics teaching program in their own church. In these times when the Christian faith is increasingly under attack at all levels and discernment is scarce, sponsoring some sort of apologetics ministry at your home church can become an essential first line of defense for your friends, family, and neighbors. Sadly, not all churches have an interest in supporting apologetics ministry, and others, though willing to provide moral and prayerful support, may not be able to provide financial support for more extensive ministry projects. However, even under the most stringent circumstances, there is a great deal that can be done to assist your fellow church members in defense of their faith.

Lay the Foundation.

Initially, you may have to explain to your fellow church members—or perhaps even pastoral staff!—what apologetics is, and provide a sound biblical basis for its practice. Most apologists cite passages at 1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3, and 2 Corinthians 10:5 for evidence of the practice of apologetics in the apostolic church. It is also helpful to note that early evangelism was based on the presentation of fact, and that potential converts were called to repentance based on the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ and the evidence of both His miracles and His fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (see, e.g., Peter’s speech in Acts 2).¹

Once a biblical basis for apologetics is established, the specific need for such ministry within your church and/or community should be demonstrated. An appeal on this basis can be made from both a positive and a negative perspective. From a negative perspective, church members and pastors can be awakened to the need for apologetics via awareness of crisis statistics indicating serious reductions in church membership and in professions of faith in Jesus Christ.

While there have been numerous analyses with varying theories concerning the cause of

these defections from practicing faith, it is clear that whatever approach to this problem a church implements would need to incorporate apologetics as part of the antidote. As the noted apologist John Warwick Montgomery has observed, “The 21st century Apologist…needs to incorporate Apologetics into every aspect of his or her ministry: every sermon, every class, every evangelistic activity. We have woefully neglected our responsibility to train our young people in the solid case for Christianity, and then we wonder why they depart from the faith under the influence of secular university instruction.”² Having excellent, solid reasons to believe the Christian faith is fundamental to maintaining a healthy worldview that is consistent with our observations and experience.

The apologist may also justify his or her ministry through the power of personal testimony.

Testimony can be offered in both a negative and a positive light. It is not difficult to find what might be called “anti-testimonies” from persons professing to have formerly been Christians, who say that they abandoned their faith because of unanswered questions that a trained apologist could easily have resolved, but which pastors or other Christians they consulted were unable to answer.³ It may also be helpful (if not indeed provocative) to present samples of atheistic or skeptical literature critical of Christianity, in order to highlight a tangible aspect of the problem.

Finally, it can be beneficial to survey your fellow church members concerning any questions

they may have had about the veracity of the Christian faith. I have found it effective, for example, to go around a room where a group is gathered, asking each member what they think the greatest challenges to their faith are, or what unresolved questions they have had about the Bible and Christianity. Few were unwilling to share their doubts and questions in a setting where others were doing the same.

Positively, the testimonies of those whose faith was strengthened by apologetics material,

and who found themselves more motivated in their evangelism because of their newfound surety of faith, can also be powerful tools. People who believe in Christianity because they have solid reasons to think that it is true will provide a far more effective witness than people who believe merely because someone else told them to, or because they had some sort of subjective experience.

Build the Walls.

Once the foundation has been established, the next step is to build a collection of resources for your church. If your church has an active library, you may be able to persuade library staff to purchase apologetics material; or perhaps you can purchase it yourself and donate it to the library. Obviously, a great deal will depend on the financial resources available. You may have to be content with providing the library with a set of bibliographies, listing books that members can read if they want more information on specific topics.

If you can add books to your church library, I would recommend giving priority to “gateway” apologetics works such as Lee Strobel’s Case series, or Hank Hanegraaff’s The Complete Bible Answer Book. More technical works by authors such as Ben Witherington or Craig Blomberg can be made as secondary purchases, or else can be listed as resources in bibliographies.

Printed materials are not your only potential resources. You may also be able to compile a roster of expert persons and organizations that church members can consult if they have questions. This may include an apologetics ministry such as the Christian Research Institute or a local seminary professor.

Have Some Class.

With resources in place, it is time to design a curriculum for an apologetics class. One of the greatest temptations is to “overload” a course with information. We should keep our audience in mind. A class composed of teachers and church leaders can be presented with more detailed information than a class composed of lay church members.

In practice, I find that it is best to craft a lesson so that the most startling or interesting aspects of an issue are highlighted, and thereafter provide a bibliography for further reading. Thus, for example, in doing a lesson on claims that the story of Jesus was based on pagan Christ-figures, I will select some of the clearest and most outrageous claims to present in the lesson proper (e.g., “1 Corinthians 10:4 was copied from Mithraic scriptures”), and this will be sufficient to alert the student to the issue and firmly implant it in his or her memory.

A bibliography attached to lesson notes will tell the students where to go for more information,

when and if they need it. Thereafter, if he or she, or a family member, encounters such claims (e.g., from the popular online movie Zeitgeist), they will know where to go for answers, without having to remember a virtual truckload of information from the lesson.

For classes for the average churchgoer, we should keep our primary focus on the defense and understanding of basic doctrines (the Atonement, the Resurrection, etc.) and major issues facing Christians in popular culture. If we teach other teachers or church leaders, a more advanced course of study is warranted, because these are the people that others look to for answers. Regrettably, it is precisely when leaders are unable to answer questions, and thereby assuage doubts, that Christians can enter into a cycle of discouragement and disillusionment in which they question their faith. This in turn can lead to a downward spiral in which the Christian loses motivation to evangelize or to serve in the Body of Christ.⁴

Stay in View.

A final, necessary step involves not only building awareness within your church fellowship, but also maintaining it. As apologists, we should make it a priority to remain on top of “hot button” issues (e.g. the alleged “tomb of Jesus,” or more recently, the Bill Maher film Religulous) and broker information about them for our churches. Ideally, we should request that pastoral staff bring attention to such issues from the pulpit on Sunday morning, and promote more in-depth programs that can be presented at other times. We might also ask for permission to provide some sort of information in our weekly church bulletins.

The critical point is that when “hot button” issues emerge, they should not simply be swept under the rug. Inevitably, inactivity in apologetics makes for ineffectiveness in evangelism. If, for example, we cannot answer questions about a film like Religulous, we foster an impression of Christians as being unwilling or unable to articulate or defend why they or anyone else should become a Christian.

As Nancy Pearcy has noted:

To be effective in equipping young people and professionals to face the challenges of a highly educated secular society, the church needs to redefine the mission of pastors and youth leaders to include training in apologetics and worldview.…Pastors must once again provide intellectual leadership for their congregations, teaching apologetics from the pulpit. Every time a minister introduces a biblical teaching, he should also instruct the congregation in ways to defend it against the major objections they are likely to encounter. A religion that avoids the intellectual task and retreats to the therapeutic realm of personal relationships and feelings will not survive in today’s spiritual battlefield.⁵

The growth of challenges to our faith, and the easy accessibility of information that challenges us, makes Pearcy’s summons a particularly urgent one. When it comes to educating Christians in the defense of their faith, it is time to be proactive instead of reactive.

—James Patrick Holding

James Patrick Holding is President of Tekton Apologetics Ministries and author of Shattering the Christ Myth (Xulon Press: 2007).

notes

1. See James Patrick Holding, “When Apologetics Was Evangelism,” Christian Research Journal 26, 1 (2003): 10–11, 51.

2. John Warwick Montgomery, “Defending the Hope That Is in Us: Apologetics for the 21st Century,” http://www.jwm.christendom.co.uk/unpublished_essay.html (accessed September 12, 2008).

3. See James Patrick Holding, “Witnessing to Those Fallen from Faith,” Christian Research Journal 28, 1 (2005): 10–11, 40.

4. On the cycle of doubt and disillusionment, see C. Michael Patton, “Leaving (Christ)ianity: An Evangelical Epidemic,” Reclaiming the Mind, http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/07/ leaving-christianity%E2%80%93-an-evangelical-epidemic/ (accessed September 15, 2008).

5. Nancy R. Pearcy, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005), 127.