Nevertheless, the conversation between abolitionists (who advocate for a total ban on abortion and do not endorse anything less than this) and incrementalists (who are willing to gradually work towards a total ban on abortion) is an important one. As a Southern Baptist and an incrementalist, I have observed and participated in this debate both within my denomination and in other contexts. Over time, I have grown to appreciate the sincerity and moral urgency of my abolitionist friends. However, as someone who has worked at the intersection of Christian ethics and public policy in Washington, D.C., for the past eight years, I have become convinced that an incrementalist approach to ending legal abortion is necessary given the political realities facing both Congress and state legislatures across the country.

The debate over how to end abortion is taking place among brothers and sisters in Christ, all of whom affirm that Scripture is unequivocally pro-life and that the only faithful Christian position is one that opposes abortion in all its forms. Yet in a post-Roe context, strategies matter more than ever, and I believe that there is a moral imperative to employ the most effective means available to end the scourge of abortion as swiftly as possible.

Accordingly, this article defends incrementalism, understood as the view that while the ultimate goal is the complete abolition of abortion, pro-life advocates should also support measures that limit and reduce abortion in the interim in order to save as many lives as possible. First, I define the relevant terms. Second, I respond to the most common critiques leveled against incrementalism by abolitionist interlocutors. And finally, I summarize recent pro-life victories which suggest that incrementalism is the most viable path for advancing pro-life policies in the post-Roe legal landscape.

Context and Definitions

Incrementalism

Since the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize abortion in Roe v. Wade in 1973, the pro-life movement has largely pursued an incrementalist approach. Incrementalists support legislative measures designed to limit the prevalence of abortion in order to save the greatest number of unborn children while working toward the ultimate goal of completely outlawing abortion. Laws that make it more difficult to end the life of an unborn child, such as heartbeat protections, fetal pain statutes, ultrasound requirements, and parental consent provisions, are examples of incrementalist measures. Legislative provisions such as the Helms and Hyde Amendments, which prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortion, are likewise incrementalist steps. In short, incrementalism views limited but meaningful restrictions on abortion as strategic advances toward the movement’s final objective.

In light of significant cultural and political obstacles, incrementalists recognize that changing both the law and public opinion on abortion is likely to be a gradual and extended process. Although those who adopt this strategy desire the immediate end of abortion, they also maintain that it is morally right to save as many lives as possible within the constraints of the current legal and political climate.

Abolitionism

Abortion abolitionists advocate exclusively for laws that would immediately and completely outlaw legal abortion. Christians who hold this view contend that efforts to limit or regulate abortion incrementally constitute a sinful capitulation to pragmatism. Grounded in the conviction that abortion is morally wicked and that Christians must not compromise with unrighteousness, abolitionists insist that lawmakers outlaw abortion in full and without delay. As one prominent abolitionist organization explains, “The abolitionist calls for the total and immediate criminalization of abortion as murder and never attempts to simply regulate or reduce abortion by treating it as healthcare.”^[1] Likewise, another abolitionist argues, “We’ve got to demand it be wholly outlawed. That demand will rally the people of God. That demand will spread the Kingdom and bring an end to abortion the world over. Anything less undermines those objectives by . . . tacitly affirming abortion’s status as health care, compromising God’s commands, not communicating what actually makes abortion wrong, and lulling the church to sleep.”^[2]

Christians who embrace the abolitionist position frequently appeal to biblical prohibitions against partiality, citing passages such as Romans 2:11, and argue that many pro-life laws enacted to date resemble the “unequal weights and measures” condemned in Scripture (e.g., Proverbs 20:10). In their view, such laws permit abortion in certain situations or under specific circumstances, and therefore institutionalize iniquitous decrees.

On this reasoning, heartbeat laws or restrictions on late-term abortion are considered sinful because they codify partiality by protecting some unborn lives while leaving others legally vulnerable. For example, when Texas enacted a law in 2021 that outlawed abortions when a heartbeat could be detected (around six weeks), one abolitionist group condemned the legislation, stating, “This law is ungodly and Christians should not support it.”^[3]

3. James Silberman, “Abolitionist Perspective on the Texas Heartbeat Bill: Three Quick Observations,” Free the States, September 2, 2021.

Incrementalist Response to Abolitionism’s Critique

Although they constitute a minority within the pro-life movement, abortion abolitionists have leveled serious critiques against those who have pursued an incrementalist approach to ending legal abortion. These critiques raise important questions: Does incrementalism amount to a sinful compromise? Is support for measures such as heartbeat or fetal pain legislation tantamount to endorsing an iniquitous decree?

In response to the concerns raised by abolitionists, here are some important points to consider:

1. Incrementalists and abolitionists share the same end but differ on the means.

Both sides in the debate agree that abortion wrongfully takes innocent life, that abortion is sinful, and that a morally upright society ought to prohibit by law the taking of innocent life. Abolitionists rightly convey a sense of moral urgency and are correct to insist that biblical principles be brought to bear on the question of abortion. Their frustration with the slow pace of pro-life progress and their refusal to grow complacent in the fight for life is understandable and even commendable. Since 1973, more than 60 million unborn children have been killed in the womb. Even after the overturning of Roe, abortion numbers have increased, demonstrating that abortion remains one of the most pressing moral issues of our time. Moreover, too many politicians who profess pro-life convictions have proven ineffective or have wavered in the face of shifting political winds.

Despite this shared moral agreement, incrementalists and abolitionists diverge over how to proceed when the immediate and complete abolition of abortion is not politically achievable. Abolitionists refuses to accept anything short of total and immediate prohibition, whereas incrementalists understand the fight for life as a war of attrition, in which each pro-life measure weakens the abortion industry’s power and reduces the number of unborn children who can be killed. For incrementalists, a perfect law—one that protects all unborn life—must not become the enemy of good, though imperfect, legislation that nonetheless saves lives.

2. Incrementalism does not constitute a moral compromise.

One of the most frequently repeated abolitionist critiques of incrementalism is the claim that incrementalists compromise biblical principles by supporting legislative measures that do not protect all unborn children. This critique, however, misunderstands how Scripture applies absolute moral norms within fallen political and social realities. While the Bible unequivocally condemns the taking of innocent life, it also recognizes that God’s people often act under conditions of constraint and limited authority.

When an incrementalist supports a heartbeat law in a jurisdiction where it can realistically be enacted and thereby saves some lives, he or she is not compromising moral principles but limiting evil to the greatest extent possible under prevailing circumstances. In the United States, committed pro-lifers remain a political minority and therefore operate from a position of relative weakness. In such conditions, wisdom does not require rejecting all partial goods in pursuit of an unattainable ideal. Rather, it calls for pursuing the best achievable outcome among imperfect options. While laws that fall short of protecting all unborn children are not ideal, refusing to enact them when they can save lives reflects a lack of prudential judgment rather than a higher moral standard.

Scripture itself treats the restraint of evil as a genuine moral good, even when evil is not eliminated entirely. The abolitionist critique implicitly suggests that if justice cannot be total, it should not be pursued at all. Scripture teaches the opposite. Zechariah 4:10 warns against despising “the day of small things,” and Jesus commends faithfulness exercised within limited stewardship (Matt. 25:21). Incremental progress toward justice is not condemned in Scripture; it is often praised as obedience under constraint. Indeed, much of the Old Testament’s civil legislation regulated sinful practices—such as divorce or slavery—without endorsing them, precisely in order to limit harm in a fallen society (Exodus 21; Deut. 24:1–4, cf. also Matt. 19:8–9). If regulating wrongdoing were itself sinful, large portions of biblical civil law would be morally suspect. Scripture instead presents restraint as a legitimate, and often necessary, expression of justice in a world marred by sin.

Finally, incrementalism must not be faulted for the injustices it does not yet prevent. Incrementalists seek to cultivate a political and cultural environment in which every unborn child can be protected from abortion. That environment does not currently exist. It is therefore mistaken to attribute the deaths of children not covered by existing pro-life laws to those who advocate for partial protections (e.g., heartbeat laws). Scripture consistently assigns moral responsibility to the wrongdoer, not to those who partially restrain wrongdoing (James 1:14–15). If a law prevents abortions after a detectable heartbeat but not before, the moral blame for abortions that still occur lies with those who perform and defend them, not with lawmakers or advocates who acted to prevent as many deaths as possible under present conditions.

3. The abolitionist approach ignores political reality.

In the summer of 2025 in Dallas, the Danbury Institute hosted an event during the Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). During a panel discussion, I defended the incrementalist approach alongside former Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission president Richard Land, while State Senator Dusty Deevers argued for the abolitionist position.^[4] In the closing minutes of the discussion, I posed a hypothetical question to Deevers: if a state legislature was deadlocked on a heartbeat bill (legislation that would criminalize abortion once a fetal heartbeat can be detected) and he held the deciding vote, how would he vote? Deevers, consistent with the abolitionist approach, responded that he would side with the bill’s opponents and defeat it. In my judgment, this answer illustrates a central weakness of the abolitionist approach: it forgoes saving lives in the present in pursuit of principles that, while well-intentioned, lack a realistic path to implementation in the foreseeable future.

4. The Danbury Institute, “Abolition vs. Incrementalism: A Panel Discussion,” YouTube, December 18, 2025. 

In truth, all pro-lifers desire to protect every unborn child and would do so immediately if it were possible. The difficulty lies in political reality. Pro-lifers do not currently possess—and historically have never possessed in the modern era—the political power to abolish abortion nationally or in most states. Between 1973 and 2022, federal courts invalidated most pro-life laws as unconstitutional. Even since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, only a limited number of states have demonstrated the political will to enact comprehensive legal protections for the unborn.

This political reality is compounded by the fact that public conviction on abortion, even among churchgoers, remains far weaker than abolitionist strategies often assume. A 2025 report by George Barna found that whereas 63 percent of churchgoers identified as “pro-life” in 2023, only 45 percent do so in 2025.^[5] During the same period, identification as “pro-choice” increased from 22 percent to 35 percent. Although the survey went beyond evangelicals and included Catholics and mainline Protestants, groups that have historically exhibited higher levels of pro-choice identification, the findings underscore an uncomfortable truth: even within the church, pro-life conviction is neither as deep nor as widespread as it should be given Scripture’s clear teaching on the value of unborn life. These realities significantly limit what can be achieved through legislation at present.

5. George Barna and David Closson, “A National Survey of Churchgoing Americans: Social Issues and Worldview,” Center for Biblical Worldview, October 2025.

For these reasons, and stated as charitably as possible, abolitionism rests on a politically naïve strategy. Christians can and should play a prophetic role in calling for the complete abolition of abortion. Yet politics remains the art of the possible. In most jurisdictions, it is simply not feasible to enact pro-life legislation without any exceptions, particularly in a cultural context marked by moral confusion and divided public opinion.

When abolitionists lack the votes necessary to pass an abolition bill, as has been the case in every instance to date, they refuse on principle to support any alternative measures. This approach has yet to result in the passage of a single law. By contrast, pro-lifers pursuing an incrementalist strategy have secured the overturning of Roe v. Wade and achieved the enactment of numerous legislative protections for the unborn. Notably, the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe arose from a challenge to Mississippi’s fifteen-week abortion protection law, an incremental measure. By pursuing attainable reforms while continuing to work toward full legal protection, incrementalists have advanced the pro-life cause and, most importantly, have saved countless lives.

Recent Incremental Victories

In my introductory article for this month’s theme, I highlighted several pro-life victories achieved since June 2022.^[6] Without repeating that analysis in full, it is worth underscoring that incrementalist strategies have produced a number of concrete and measurable gains against the abortion industry since the overturning of Roe v. Wade. For example, while 807 facilities were providing abortions nationwide in 2020, that number had declined to 765 by May 2024. An additional forty-four abortion facilities closed in 2025. Most recently, Planned Parenthood announced that its Rolla, Missouri location had ceased in-person services on January 1, 2026.^[7]

The closure of dozens of abortion facilities can be attributed in large part to state-level pro-life legislation enacted after Roe was overturned, as well as to President Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” passed in the summer of 2025, which prohibits Planned Parenthood from billing Medicaid. Though incremental in nature, this legislation was explicitly cited by several abortion providers as a decisive factor in their decision to close clinics.^[8]

8. Praveena Somasundaram, “Planned Parenthood Closes 20 Clinics After Medicaid Cuts, Warns of Grim Future,” The Washington Post, November 12, 2025.

Another incremental victory for pro-lifers is the law passed by Texas lawmakers in September 2025 that allows private citizens to sue manufacturers and distributors who mail abortion drugs into the state. The law, which took effect in early December, further prohibits the manufacturing of abortion drugs within Texas.

The development in Texas is especially important given that chemical abortion now accounts for the majority of abortions in the United States. Tragically, overall abortion numbers have increased since 2022, a trend driven almost entirely by the expanded availability of abortion drugs. Although these drugs were initially approved in 2000, successive administrations, particularly under Presidents Obama and Biden, progressively loosened regulatory safeguards. In 2025, legal challenges to these drugs continued to move through the courts following the Supreme Court’s June 2024 decision against a group of pro-life physicians on procedural grounds. Against this backdrop, state-level efforts such as Texas’s represent one of the most promising avenues for limiting the reach of chemical abortion in the current legal environment.

Conclusion

As mentioned, it is tragically true that abortion numbers in the United States have increased since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. However, incremental pro-life laws are not responsible for this increase. In fact, a 2025 analysis by researchers at Johns Hopkins estimated that pro-life legislation in 14 states resulted in 22,180 additional live births beyond what would have been expected in the absence of such laws.^[9] Nevertheless, the expectation that total abortions would decline nationwide following the Dobbs decision has not materialized.

9. Bloomberg School, “Two New Studies Provide Broadest Evidence to Date of Unequal Impacts of Abortion Bans,” Press Release, Johns Hopkins, February 13, 2025.

As many scholars have noted, abortion numbers have risen for a variety of reasons unrelated to incremental legislation.^[10] These include aggressive legal strategies adopted by pro-abortion states, the Food and Drug Administration’s decision to permit mail-order abortion drugs through telehealth without in-person requirements (in direct contravention of federal law), the shipment of abortion drugs into pro-life states under so-called shield laws, and the designation of certain jurisdictions as “abortion havens.” Together, these developments have enabled pro-abortion states to circumvent strong restrictions on surgical abortion in pro-life states.

10. Mia Steupert, “How Many Abortions Are Occurring in America Post-Dobbs?” Charlotte Lozier Institute, May 22, 2025.

The disagreement between abolitionists and incrementalists represents an important internal dialogue among those who share the same ultimate goal: the complete outlawing of abortion. In my view, abolitionists have articulated many morally consistent arguments that rightly emphasize the equal value of every unborn child, and their motivations are generally well intentioned. Nevertheless, the strategy they advocate has thus far produced no tangible legislative results and has often been accompanied by rhetoric that is unnecessarily contentious toward fellow pro-lifers.

The post-Roe cultural and political landscape has proven far more challenging than many pro-lifers anticipated. The abortion industry and its allies in media and politics continue to advance narratives that portray pro-lifers as hostile to women, while aggressively resisting even modest restrictions on abortion. In the years ahead, pro-life advocates will need to labor with renewed diligence to persuade their friends and neighbors, while also countering the misinformation propagated by the pro-abortion lobby. In the realm of public policy, wisdom requires pursuing strategies that save as many lives as possible, even as moral consistency demands that we remain dissatisfied until every unborn child is protected from the scourge of abortion.

Since 1973, more than 60 million babies have been aborted. And surely those numbers do not include the pregnancies terminated by women ingesting a pill that takes the life of their child. Indeed, for all the ways that advocates for life celebrated the end of Roe, the sad truth remains: abortions have not gone down in America since 2022. Instead, they continue to be celebrated by radical activists, defended by elderly women in pink hats, and protected by some pro-life advocates who cannot bring themselves to prosecute a woman for seeking an abortion.

When it comes to the debate around abortion there are fault lines between political parties and advocates and opponents of abortion. Yet, at the same time, there are fault lines between those who would seek to end abortion, too. Most prominently, there is a divide between abolitionists and incrementalists. Abolitionists are driven by both the Word of God and equal protection under the law to end abortion immediately and totally. Incrementalists also long for abortion to be ended, but they strategize ways to limit abortion legislatively, even if those measures may not call for the total abolition of abortion. So in general, an incrementalist would support a legislative ban on abortions after the ten weeks of gestation, while an abolitionist would not support this kind of ban—because why allow babies to be murdered before they are ten weeks old?

In between is a world of nuance. There are abolitionists who rejected Donald Trump for the way the Republican party softened their stance on abortion, and there are others who continued to support our forty-seventh president. There are smash-mouth incrementalists who are committed to equal protection under the law and the ultimate goal of abolition, but who are also willing to concede various incremental strategies on the way to that end. And there are other pro-life advocates and organizations, some who are not even Christian, who work against abortion, but who will not hold the woman accountable for their role in killing their own child. Throw in a host of strong personalities, media skills, organizational commitments, and regional differences, and you have a hornets’ nest of issues to work through in bringing the unchanging law of God to the laws of our land.

Scripture is undeniable: Thou shalt not kill. And all parties who shed blood are responsible to God for the blood they shed. Equally, every image of God, from the moment of fertilization, deserves protection. Legal protection is not something that should be granted when the child is delivered, or at the moment they can feel pain, or the moment their heart beats. Rather, if our affections are shaped by the Word of God, we should strive for the protection of life no matter the size, age, or location of the child. The child in the womb deserves the same protection as the woman on the street. Yet, many of our states do not have laws that protect the unborn in this way.

At the same time, how do we pass laws when the hearts of the lawmakers are so battle-hardened against the calls for life? How do pro-life politicians convince women and men who are religiously committed to radical feminism to protect the child instead of a woman’s “right to choose”? And if some partial-measure is passed that saves some children—a heartbeat bill, for instance—on the way to writing laws that protect all children, then shouldn’t we celebrate such legislation—even as we fight for more? And we also might consider that every state has a different representative make-up, which will result in different legislative strategies. And so, if there is an organization with a national platform, shouldn’t that organization refuse to stand in the way of an outright abolition of abortion in one state for fear of what that might do in another state?

These questions and others stand at the heart of the debate today, and this month, we intend to talk about them all. Without taking a side that says abolitionists are right and incrementalists are wrong, or vice versa, we hope to widen the conversation this month to let all parties speak. And so, in the weeks ahead we will hear from abolitionists and incrementalists, authors and advocates, politicians and political commentators, on the best strategies to end abortion. And in facilitating a debate among brothers and sisters in Christ, we hope to further the conversation in such a way that we can understand the arguments on both sides and how and where we can work together to bring an end to abortion.

To that end, we enter the new year seeking to abolish abortion and to advocate for life.

One last thing: we would value your feedback as we go through this month. As you look at the upcoming articles we have planned and you see an area, angle, or argument that we have missed, send us an email (located at the bottom footer of our website) and let us know soon. If there’s an essay you’d like to contribute, reach out to us and let’s talk.

Christmas Buffet: Assorted Articles for an Edifying Advent

Before running into the new year, don’t miss all the healthy portions from December. In these essays we have a mix of Christmas devotions, Christian doctrine, and a host of other considerations. So take a look and share with others anything good you find (our longforms are in bold below).

• Law is King: How the Bible Shapes Our View of Law & Civil Government by Levi Secord • Longform Essay • Deuteronomy 17 shows that kings stand under God’s law. This article explores how rulers rise to power, why they must obey the law, and whether these truths apply beyond Israel.
• City of God: A Primer by Daniel Strand • Concise Article • Augustine’s City of God has withstood the test of time, exerting influence on political thought for nearly 1,600 years. In this article, scholar Daniel Strand provides an overview of Augustine’s magnum opus, discussing its background, literary genre, structure, and key themes.
• 4.55 “Law is King: How the Bible Shapes Our View of Law & Civil Government” by Levi Secord • Podcast Reading • Deuteronomy 17 shows that kings stand under God’s law. This article explores how rulers rise to power, why they must obey the law, and whether these truths apply beyond Israel.
• Vocation Politics: The Discourses of Pierre de La Place by Timon Cline • Concise Article • Martyred Huguenot Pierre de La Place saw politics as the harmony of all vocations. This essay uncovers his rich vision for public life, calling, and the common good.
• A Brief Theology of Leisure for an Over-Worked and Anxious People by Benjamin Nguyen • Concise Article • Life is busy and work is hard whether you are a Christian or not. But the Bible helps us think rightly about both our labors and our rest. Read on as Benjamin Nguyen outlines the theme of rest, or leisure, in the Bible and applies it to believers today.
• A Primer on Kuyper’s Politics by Jordan J. Ballor • Concise Article • A practical introduction to Abraham Kuyper’s political theology—common grace, sphere sovereignty, and a vision of Christ’s lordship over all life.
• Stop and See the Stars: Medieval Mysteries and Contemporary Christians by Michael Longerbeam • Concise Article • A call for Christians to resist a mechanized view of the universe by recovering the medieval sense of mystery, order, and humility—learning from C.S. Lewis and Jason Baxter to slow down, look up, and remember the God who made the stars.
• Was Jesus a Refugee? And Why It Matters for the Immigration Issue by Alex Kocman • Longform Essay • In an effort to steer well-meaning Christians’ sympathies, some leaders in the church have cited the life of our Lord as evidence for their progressive political agenda. But are they getting their facts straight? Read as Alex Kocman dispels the emotional trump-card, “Jesus was a refugee.”
• 4.56 “Was Jesus a Refugee? And Why It Matters for Immigration” by Alex Kocman • Podcast Reading • In an effort to steer well-meaning Christians’ sympathies, some leaders in the church have cited the life of our Lord as evidence for their progressive political agenda. But are they getting their facts straight? Read as Alex Kocman dispels the emotional trump-card, “Jesus was a refugee.”
• Christmas Poetry: “Emmanuel Revealed: A Catechism on Hope” by Dan Haase • Concise Article • A poetic catechism meditating on hope, its nature, and its consummation in love through the advent of Emmanuel.
• The Christmas Gift of Un-Clouded Spirituality by Andrew Ballard • Concise Article • Many see their spiritual life like Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness: always chasing an elusive, tangible God. But Andrew Ballard shows how in Christ, we have received a greater, more substantial experience of God. So, let us leave behind a “cloudy spirituality,” and instead embrace Christ in all his glory.
• Should Pastors Be Political?: Alcohol Prohibition as Test Case in Dallas, TX by Marc Minter • Concise Article • Should religious leaders hold sway over their congregation’s ballots? Does a pastor speaking to political issues violate the separation of church and state? Read on as Marc Minter illuminates the issue via the test case of George Truett’s support for prohibition in 1917.
• Christmas Hope and the Stockdale Paradox: Christmas in Light of Our Liberation from Sin by Josh Wootton • Concise Article • Many of our carols speak of the joy of Christmas. One source of that joy is the liberation from sin which we receive a foretaste of in this life. Read as Josh Wootton offers a brief explanation of how the freedom from sin inaugurated in Christ gives us hope this Christmas.
• 4.57 “Law is King: How the Bible Shapes Our View of Law & Civil Government” by Levi Secord, David Schrock, & Stephen Wellum • Podcast Interview • Listen in as David Schrock and Stephen Wellum interview Levi Secord on his COA Longform Essay: “Law is King: How the Bible Shapes Our View of Law & Civil Government.”
• Christmas Among Curses by Brandon D. Myers • Concise Article • Christmas is meant to be a joyous time when we remember the wonderful advent of our Lord Jesus. But this joy can only be rightly received when the curse is felt.
• Christmas is for Kids by Garrett Wishall • Concise Article • Obviously, Christmas is for kids! But what if I told you that it’s ONLY for kids—that unless you become a kid yourself, Christmas isn’t for you? That’s what Jesus said, and Garrett Wishall is here to remind us how to do it.
• Matthew’s Genealogy Isn’t Missing a Name—It’s Making a Claim by Jeremy Sexton • Concise Article • While many of us may skip the opening genealogy in Matthew’s gospel, Jeremy Sexton argues that Matthew’s first chapter is rich with gospel truth. Read on and see how the generations from Abraham to Jesus bring us to the heart of Nicene theology, glorifying our great savior!
• A Wide Road to Hell: Pluralism, the Incarnation, and the Exclusivity of Christ by Chris Prosser • Concise Article • Why do non-Christians like the Christmas story? Because everyone loves a Jesus who is merely one manifestation of God’s love among many. But such a Jesus cannot save you. The whole narrative of Scripture and the reality of the incarnation both demand that Jesus be exclusive: apart from him there is no salvation.
• 4.58 “Was Jesus a Refugee? And Why It Matters for Immigration” by Alex Kocman, David Schrock, & Stephen Wellum • Podcast Interview • Listen in as David Schrock & Stephen Wellum interview Alex Kocman on his COA Longform Essay “Was Jesus a Refugee? And Why It Matters for Immigration.”
• A Heart for Christmas or for Christ? by David Schrock • Concise Article • Introducing the very first short story in Christ Over All’s history! This won’t be the last—next December, we’ll hold a short story competition all month long!
• Attention as Worship by Jeff Beaupre • Concise Article • What if what you pay attention to most reveals what you worship?
• In Defense of Religion: Why “Jesus vs. Religion” Falls Apart by Tyler Cox • Concise Article • Should we ditch “religion” for Jesus because the term has negative connotations? Or is embracing the concept of religion fundamental to what it means to be a Christian?
• 4.59 “Christ Over All Editor Roundtable & A Preview of 2026” by David Schrock, Trent Hunter, Ardel Caneday, & Stephen Wellum • Podcast Interview • Listen in as the Editorial Board for Christ Over All reviews the year of 2025 and looks forward to what’s coming in 2026.
• Hope of the Prophets: The Divine Missions and the Literal Sense of the Old Testament by Michael Pereira • Concise Article • How do we reconcile the Old Testament authors genuinely foretelling New Testament realities, but then only the Son can reveal the saving knowledge of these realities? The answer lies in divine missions.

News and Notes

First, thank you for giving!

In the Lord’s kindness, Christ Over All received a $25,000 matching gift, and in the month of December we raised more than $40,000, with a few receipts still being totaled. So, thank you for giving and praying and supporting this work. It is only as the Lord provides through your generous gifts that we can continue to bring these resources online.

Second, this month we will begin selling our PDFs—half off!

As Steve Wellum noted on our last podcast for 2025, each month Christ Over All is compiling a book’s worth of material on given subjects. And for those who are avid readers, you know that the volume is more than you can often read in one month. Yet, in our attempts to produce evergreen material, we often want to cover an issue from multiple angles—biblical, theological, historical, cultural, and practical.

What that means in a month, however, is that often it is too much. Yet, we believe it is just right when you want to dive deep into a subject or use the materials for a class or discipleship group. And to help facilitate that, we will begin selling our PDFs for $15. The cost goes to help cover the expenses of the ministry and in time, we hope to find a way to print our months. But for now, each PDF will be a well-formatted, paginated journal that you can download and share with those you are ministering to. And for starters, every theme will be half-off. So keep your eyes out for these PDFs.

Third, be aware of our upcoming months.

We receive submissions from faithful Christians who have thought deeply about our topics. If you have interest in one of the following topics in bold and are interested in writing for us (in line with our doctrinal distinctives), feel free to shoot us an e-mail to tell us what you are thinking. We are still taking submissions for the months in bold below:

January: Abolishing Abortion, Advocating for Life

February: God Is . . . Engaging the Doctrine of God

March: Can the Center Hold? The SBC in the Twenty First Century

April: The Resurrection in the Old Testament

May: Critiquing Eastern Orthodoxy

June: Opposing Islam

July: Celebrating America’s 250^th Anniversary

August: A Sabbath Rest: A Collection of COA’s Best Essays . . . So Far

September: The Ten Commandments

October: Pastor, Be Political: A Guide Glorifying God in the Midterms

November: Economics 101

December: Christmas Carols to the Glory of God

Fourth, we’d love to see you face to face in the next few months.

In 2026, we will be visiting Southwest Florida to join the Founders National Conference in Fort Myers on January 22–24. That week David Schrock will be one of the speakers, and we will have a booth. Sign up here to join us.

Join Trent Hunter, David Helm, and Ryan Kelly in Greenville, SC, from January 28–30, 2026, for a Simeon Trust Workshop on Leviticus. If you are a pastor, preacher, or aspiring minister of the gospel, this hands-on workshop is well worth the time.

That’s all for this month. Until next time, let’s remember that because Christ is Lord over all, we ought exalt Christ in all things.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, abortion has remained a mainstay in American public discourse. While pro-lifers rightly celebrated the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision which returned abortion policy to the people and their elected representatives, the ensuing years have produced mixed results as activists, lawmakers, and stakeholders on both sides have continued advocating, legislating, and politicking. Since Roe’s demise, there have been significant pro-life advances. From the passage of strong state pro-life laws to life-affirming actions by the Trump administration, new pro-life policies have been enacted since 2022. However, rising abortion rates and a slew of new pro-abortion laws in progressive states continue to counterbalance pro-life progress.

As we begin 2026, it is helpful to take stock of the pro-life movement, including recent victories and ongoing challenges. Undoubtedly, the election of Donald J. Trump to the White House in the first post-Roe presidential election is significant. The first year of the second Trump administration included a return to many of the pro-life policies of his first term. However, the administration’s reluctance to act decisively to protect women and children from abortion drugs demonstrates that much work remains.

In what follows, I will summarize the history of the pro-life movement since June 2022. In addition to new state laws that protect unborn children, hundreds of abortion businesses have closed, abortion drugs have been challenged in court, federal agencies have committed to reevaluate the safety of abortion drugs, and recent polling suggests that public opinion is trending in a pro-life direction. After reviewing these victories, I will focus on some of the remaining challenges. Notably, most of the victories celebrated since the overturning of Roe have been the result of an incrementalist strategy that seeks to save as many lives as possible while working toward the ultimate goal of making abortion illegal and morally unthinkable.

State Pro-Life Victories

As I document in my book, Life After Roe: Equipping Christians in the Fight for Life Today (B&H Academic, 2025), many pro-life states took immediate action after Roe was overturned. In fact, on the day of the Dobbs decision, several states moved to enact previously unenforceable pro-life laws. For example, within six minutes of the Supreme Court’s decision, then-Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt announced the certification of his state’s pro-life law. Other states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas saw their conditional laws take effect immediately or within a few weeks of the decision.

Significantly, by the one-year anniversary of Dobbs, fourteen states protected life at conception. Additionally, four additional states had similar laws in place that were unenforceable while litigation played out in the courts. Five states had either passed heartbeat bills or already had a pre-Dobbs heartbeat bill on the books. An additional seven states protected unborn life based on gestational age (at the point when science is certain an unborn child can feel pain or at the point an unborn child is generally viable outside the womb), though some were unenforceable due to ongoing litigation.

As of January 2026, about half the states have strong pro-life laws in place. In December 2025, the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research think tank, identified 16 states that it considered “most restrictive” in terms of access to abortion. Another three states (Georgia, Nebraska, and Utah) were labeled “very restrictive,” and seven states were identified as “restrictive.” Guttmacher’s criteria for its most restrictive category included laws that protect unborn children at conception and heartbeat bills that protect life around six weeks.

In short, while much work remains for pro-life state legislators around the country, dozens of strong laws have been enacted since June 2022; 23 states now have laws protecting unborn children in the first trimester. Additionally, in 2025, researchers from Johns Hopkins estimated that pro-life laws in 14 states resulted in 22,180 additional live births above what would have been expected in the absence of these laws.

Defunding the Abortion Industry

According to the Guttmacher Institute, there were 807 facilities providing abortions in 2020. Following Dobbs, several abortion facilities were forced to close. By March 2024, there were 765 clinics, a net loss of 42 clinics. Most of these closed facilities were in states that passed strong pro-life protections. In fact, as of March 2024, there were no facilities providing surgical abortions in the 14 states with complete protection laws in effect at that time. Remarkably, these states had a combined 63 clinics in 2020.

Facility closures accelerated in 2025 due, in part, to successful efforts to defund the abortion industry. In November 2025, The Washington Post reported that 20 abortion businesses closed in response to the enactment of President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.” The bill, which was signed into law in July 2025, prevents Planned Parenthood from billing Medicaid. Significantly, these 20 shuttered facilities were in addition to more than two dozen Planned Parenthood locations that had closed in the early months of 2025 in response to other federal funding cuts.

The closure of abortion facilities in the United States has attracted national and even international attention. In 2025, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, NPR, and the London-based Guardian carried largely sympathetic stories about the plight of abortion businesses. In a press release published on July 1, 2025, Planned Parenthood warned that nearly 200 facilities were at risk of closure if President Trump’s tax bill became law. According to SBA Pro-Life America, 44 abortion facilities closed in 2025, with many of them citing the GOP’s tax law as the reason.

Additionally, on June 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. In 2018, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster signed an executive order directing the state’s Department of Health and Human Services to remove a Planned Parenthood affiliate from the state Medicaid program due to the affiliate’s involvement with abortion. Planned Parenthood and several Medicaid recipients filed suit, arguing that Medicaid’s “free choice of provider” provision allows recipients to choose any qualified provider, including Planned Parenthood. Lower courts, including the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled in favor of the abortion lobby.

However, in 2025, the Supreme Court reversed these decisions, explaining that Medicaid patients do not have a private right to sue a state if it excludes a provider from Medicaid. The ruling allows South Carolina to lawfully exclude Planned Parenthood—which performed a record 402,230 abortions and received a record $792.2 million in taxpayer funding during the 2023 fiscal year—from its Medicaid program.

The Supreme Court’s decision sets an important precedent and paves the way for other states to follow suit and exclude abortion providers from Medicaid. If they do, Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers across the country could face the loss of millions in taxpayer funding.

Trump Administration: Pro-Life Policies

Since reassuming office, President Trump has enacted a range of pro-life policies. For instance, within the first two weeks of his second term, the president reversed several pro-abortion executive orders promulgated by former president Joe Biden. In one order titled “Enforcing the Hyde Amendment,” the president revoked Executive Order 14076, a Biden order that had required a government-wide effort to promote and fund abortion. Trump’s order also revoked Executive Order 14079, which had recategorized abortion as a form of health care and allowed individuals seeking abortion to use Medicaid for elective abortions across state lines.

President Trump also reinstated the Mexico City Policy, which ensures that U.S. tax dollars do not fund organizations or programs that carry out or promote abortion abroad. This action was similar to a 2017 order that covered $8.8 billion in so-called “family planning” and global health funds.

At the State Department, Secretary Marco Rubio announced in January 2025 that the United States would rejoin the Geneva Consensus Declaration, an international initiative that affirms that “there is no international right to abortion.” In November 2025, the State Department adopted new guidelines for identifying human rights violations. According to its annual report on human rights violations, government-funded abortions and the distribution of abortifacient drugs are now considered “infringements” on human rights.

Additionally, the Trump administration has used the bully pulpit of the presidency to emphasize the humanity of the unborn. President Trump concluded his first week back in the Oval Office by addressing the March for Life through a video message and JD Vance spoke to march participants in person, promising that the new administration would champion pro-life policies. In the early weeks of the administration, President Trump also pardoned 23 pro-life activists who had been convicted under the FACE Act by the Biden Justice Department.

Finally, in his first international trip as vice president, JD Vance drew attention to the plight of Adam Smith Connor, a British Army veteran who was convicted for silently praying outside a U.K. abortion clinic. Although Vance’s comments drew a chorus of protest from European allies, the vice president did not retract his criticism of illiberal policies that target European pro-life citizens.

Early Legal Challenges to Abortion Drugs

In 2024, pro-lifers were disappointed when the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a group of doctors and medical groups challenging the expansion of access to abortion drugs did not have legal standing. However, the case drew national attention to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) removal of safety standards during the Obama and Biden administrations.

For context, a group of pro-life doctors filed a lawsuit in November 2022 challenging the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone in 2000 and the subsequent removal of safeguards in 2016 and 2021. In April 2023, a federal district court sided with the doctors. Five days later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5^th Circuit allowed a portion of the district court’s order to stay in place, including the prohibition of sending abortion drugs through the mail. Although the Supreme Court paused the district court’s decision pending appeal, the case garnered considerable attention to the dangers represented by the drugs.

Although the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against the doctors in June 2024, the decision was based on a legal technicality; the justices did not address the merits of the case. Moreover, the Court affirmed conscience protections for medical professionals. Since the Court’s decision, three states (Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri) have intervened in the lower courts to continue the fight to hold the FDA accountable.

Additional legal challenges to the abortion drug include a lawsuit filed in December 2025 by Florida and Texas against the FDA. The attorneys general for both states argue that the FDA has failed to properly evaluate the drug’s safety and effectiveness since its initial approval in 2000 and has disregarded the risks it poses to women.

Finally, in September 2025, Texas lawmakers passed a law allowing private citizens to sue manufacturers and distributors who mail abortion drugs into the state. The law, which took effect in early December, further prohibits the manufacturing of abortion drugs within Texas.

Concerted Pressure on the FDA to Reevaluate Mifepristone

In April 2025, the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) released a bombshell report that showed 10.93% of women experience an adverse health event following a mifepristone abortion. Adverse health outcomes include sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, and other life-threatening complications. This number was 22 times higher than currently recognized by the FDA. The study, which included an analysis of 865,727 mifepristone abortions from 2017 to 2023, received national attention.

Following the publication of the EPPC report, pro-lifers called on the FDA to revoke its approval of mifepristone, or, at the very least, to restore previously removed safeguards including in-person physician oversight and mandatory adverse event reporting. On June 2, 2025, FDA Commissioner Martin Makary committed to conduct a full review of the abortion drug’s safety. In September 2025, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. confirmed that the FDA was reviewing the safety of the drug.

Despite the commitments from Secretary Kennedy and Commissioner Makary, in October 2025, the FDA approved an additional generic form of mifepristone. Although the White House insisted that the approval was mandated by law and should not be considered “an endorsement” of the drug, pro-lifers expressed frustration. In November 2025, 175 congressional Republicans wrote a letter to Kennedy and Makary emphasizing the importance of reinstating the in-person dispensing requirement for the abortion drug.

Finally, in terms of abortion drugs, the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, passed a resolution in June 2025, officially calling for the revocation of the FDA’s approval of mifepristone and, in the meantime, the restoration of previously removed safeguards. The resolution’s passage drew attention to the issue of chemical abortion among Southern Baptists and the broader evangelical world.

Abortion Polling Shifts in Pro-Life Direction

In an encouraging sign that pro-life sentiment is growing, KFF reported that fewer U.S. adults believe abortion drugs are safe when taken as directed. According to the report, in May 2023, 55% of Americans believed abortion drugs were “very safe” or “somewhat safe.” However, in November 2025, only 42% of Americans held this view. Among women of reproductive age, perception of abortion pill safety fell from 60% to 55%.

Additionally, a 2025 Gallup report indicated that the percentage of Americans who identify as pro-life has grown since the Dobbs decision. Whereas 55% of Americans identified as pro-choice in May 2022 (shortly after a draft of the Dobbs decision was leaked), 51% identified as pro-choice in May 2025. In the same period, the percentage of those who identified as pro-life rose from 39% (May 2022) to 43% (May 2025). Likewise, 52% of Americans indicated that abortion was “morally acceptable” in 2022; 49% held that view in 2025. In the same period, those who believed abortion was “morally wrong” rose from 38% in 2022 to 40% in 2025.

Finally, an October 2025 report by McLaughlin & Associates found that seven in 10 voters want to restore the safeguards for the abortion drug mifepristone that were removed by the Biden administration. Surprisingly, 71% of likely voters believed a doctor’s visit should be required before the abortion drug is prescribed. Additionally, 87% of respondents indicated that FDA drug labels should include the “real-world impact of the chemical abortion drugs on patients who take it.”

Challenges: Abortion Drugs, Referendums, and Confusion in the Pews

Despite the steady progress achieved by pro-lifers since Dobbs, challenges remain. Perhaps the greatest challenge to the pro-life movement is the prevalence of abortion drugs. In November 2025, The New York Times editorial board rightly observed that “abortion pills have transformed the practice of reproductive medicine.” In fact, it is estimated that over 63% of abortions now take place through drugs. Although many states have passed strong pro-life protections, progressive states have passed “shield laws” that legally protect abortion providers who ship abortion pills through the mail to pro-life states in violation of their laws. Although federal law prohibits the mailing of any “article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion,” the federal government, even under the Trump administration, has refused to meaningfully enforce the law to its fullest extent.

Currently, at least twenty states have some form of a shield law in place protecting abortion providers, and eight of those include telehealth provisions, meaning they will not comply with any legal action that a pro-life state takes against a provider who sends abortion drugs within their borders. For example, New York is refusing to help Louisiana or Texas enforce its pro-life laws against a New York abortionist who has prescribed and mailed abortion drugs to abortion-seekers in those pro-life states. Although a New York judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in October 2025, it is likely that federal courts will soon be asked to address the legality of shield laws.

Another challenge facing pro-lifers is the ease by which pro-abortion amendments can be added to state constitutions. In 18 states, citizens can initiate the process to amend their state’s constitution. In many of these states, a simple majority is needed for passage. In 2022, voters in California, Michigan, and Vermont were the first to approve pro-abortion constitutional amendments. In 2023, Ohio voters also approved a pro-abortion amendment. In 2024, six states (Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, and New York) added permissive pro-abortion amendments to their state constitutions. Thankfully, voters in Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota rejected similar referendums. However, the outcome of these ballot measures proves that statewide referendums, which can be influenced by tens of millions of out-of-state spending, will remain a challenge for pro-lifers in the foreseeable future.

Finally, although public opinion seems to gradually be shifting toward pro-lifers on a variety of issues, a 2025 report by the Center for Biblical Worldview (published in partnership with Dr. George Barna and Arizona Christian University) revealed that churchgoers remain divided on the Bible’s teaching on abortion. The report, which surveyed churchgoing Catholics, evangelicals, and mainline Protestants, included several surprising findings, especially when compared to a comparable 2023 report.

Whereas 63% of churchgoers identified as “pro-life” in 2023, only 45% identified as pro-life in 2025. Meanwhile, “pro-choice” identification rose 13 points (22% in 2023 to 35% in 2025). Similar to 2023, there was little consensus in 2025 about what the Bible teaches regarding abortion: 26% said never acceptable, 19% said acceptable if the mother’s life is endangered, 12% said acceptable if the child will be born with significant physical or mental challenges, and 4% said acceptable under any circumstance. Fourteen percent insisted, “none of these,” and another 16% admitted they did not know what the Bible teaches on the topic.

In 2025, 54% of churchgoers said the Bible indicates when human life begins, 24% said it does not, and 22% said they did not know. Among those who believe the Bible defines when life begins, 40% said it begins when the female egg is fertilized, 10% said the point at which the child has been delivered and begins breathing, and 9% said the Bible is not specific on the matter (after having just said that the Bible indicates when human life begins), and 7% said they did not know. Ironically, despite the pervasive confusion evidenced by these responses, only 25% wanted more teaching from their church in 2025 on the topic of abortion, compared to 31% in 2023.

Conclusion

Since Roe was overturned in 2022, pro-life states have enacted a variety of laws to protect unborn children and thousands of babies are alive today as a result. The Trump administration has also championed a variety of pro-life policies that have protected federal funds from being used to fund or promote abortion. However, progressive states have worked equally hard to circumvent new pro-life laws through shield laws and mail-order abortions. Some progressive states, such as Washington state, have even vowed to backfill millions of dollars that Planned Parenthood is set to lose after losing access to Medicaid reimbursements.

In short, recent years have brought meaningful pro-life gains worth celebrating. Nevertheless, significant challenges remain, particularly the growing prevalence of abortion drugs, which operate in a largely unregulated environment. With an administration that has been generally receptive to pro-life concerns, it is essential to continue making a strong case to the White House, HHS, FDA, and DOJ for revoking the approval of these dangerous drugs and, in the meantime, reinstating the safeguards that were rolled back under previous Democratic administrations. It is also imperative that the federal government enforce the Comstock Act, which prohibits the mailing of abortifacient drugs.

Beyond federal action, the pro-life movement must continue pressing its case in the courts by challenging the constitutionality of shield laws. And for Christians, it remains vital to articulate the Bible’s pro-life ethic to friends, neighbors, and fellow congregants, grounding public advocacy in faithful discipleship and moral clarity.

But for millennia, the faith of God’s people was not one that looked back or reflected like ours; it was one that strained forward in earnest expectation for the arrival of the hope of the prophets, David’s Son and David’s Lord. In Luke 10:23–24, Jesus declares privately to his disciples, “Blessed are the eyes which see the things you see, for I say to you, that many prophets and kings wished to see the things which you see, and did not see them, and to hear the things which you hear, and did not hear them.”^[1] The prophets and kings of old, like Isaiah and David, did indeed anticipate and write concerning Christ the Lord and his work (cf. John 12:41; Acts 2:29–31). In the context of Luke 10, Jesus clarifies the content of the great things which these prophets and kings longed to see and hear, things revealed “to infants.” He says, “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him” (Luke 10:22). What the prophets and kings longed to see and hear was the full revelation of the Triune God and his saving purposes which only the incarnation of the Son could bring, for no one “has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him” (John 1:18; cf. Matt. 13:10–17).

[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture citations will be drawn from the NASB 1995.

So how do we reconcile the biblical truths that the prophetic authors of the Old Testament genuinely foretold that which we read in the New Testament, and that only the Son can reveal the fullness of the saving knowledge of the Triune God? I believe the answer is two-fold: 1) the communicative intent of the Old Testament human authors involved an expectation of greater, eschatological revelation of what they foretold and further illumination of their own inspired writings. And 2) God’s full intention in these prophetic writings, which is only unveiled through the sending of the Son and the Spirit (i.e., the divine missions) coheres with this limited human intention to produce one literal sense through which we fully see Christ in the Old Testament.^[2]

[2] Much of the material here is directly drawn with permission from my forthcoming article, “‘And Now The Lord God Has Sent Me and His Spirit’: The Divine Missions, the Literal Sense, and Reading the Old Testament,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 68.4.

The key to a right understanding of this issue is a proper grasp on the significance of the sending of the Son and the Spirit in the Triune God’s economy of salvation and revelation. Thus, I will start here and then move to a brief discussion of this asymmetrical but unified divine and human authorial intent for a theologically rich, literal-sense reading of the Old Testament.

The Divine Missions

The divine missions (from the Latin: mittere, “to send”) are the redemptive and revelatory sending of the Son and the Holy Spirit into the world. The mission of the Son is his coming into the world through the incarnation to reveal his Father to the people he redeems (John 1:18; 6:38–39; 12:44; etc.),^[3] and the Spirit is sent at Pentecost to bear witness to the Son, to convict the world, and to be the Comforter who brings the abode of the Father and the Son into the hearts of the saints (John 14:16–20, 26; 15:26; etc.).

[3] The following is a list of the times John’s Gospel alone speaks of the Son as sent from the Father: John 4:34; 5:23, 30, 37; 6:38, 44; 7:16, 18, 28, 33; 8:16, 18, 26, 29; 9:4; 12:44, 49; 13:16, 20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5; 20:21.

The missions are inherently revelatory because, as Thomas Aquinas rightly notes, the sending of a divine person reveals “the relation of the one sent to the sender.”^[4] In other words, that the Father sent the Son reveals the Son’s eternal relation to the Father, namely, eternal generation or begottenness. The sending of the Spirit from the Father and the Son reveals that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds or is ‘breathed’ from the Father and the Son. Augustine insightfully stated that “just as being born means for the Son his being from the Father, so his being sent means his being known to be from him. And just as for the Holy Spirit his being the gift of God means his proceeding from the Father, so his being sent means his being known to proceed from him.”^[5] The missions are extensions of the divine life into the created world, thus revealing the eternal relations of origin in the one God without indicating any inferiority of the sent persons. Thus, while the one God has always been Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he did not fully reveal himself as such until the revelatory missions of the Son and the Spirit. Much more could be said on this matter, but it suffices for our purposes to state that the divine missions are the visible sending of the Son and the Spirit into the world to reveal the triune God and to bring eternal life to God’s people.^[6]

End Times Revelation through the Prophetic Scriptures

These biblical truths about the revelatory significance of the divine missions correspond to what we see in Romans 16:25–26, Paul’s concluding doxology, wherein he states,

Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the proclamation about Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept silent for long ages but now revealed and made known through the prophetic Scriptures, according to the command of the eternal God to advance the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles—to the only wise God through Jesus Christ—to him be the glory forever! Amen. (CSB)

A couple key insights from this passage need to be mentioned here.

First, although central to the idea of “mystery” is the full inclusion of believing Gentiles to the eschatological inheritance of God’s people,^[7] the “mystery” now revealed also is a Trinitarian and Christological mystery. This gospel proclamation is the message which God “promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures—concerning his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord” and the “Spirit of holiness” (Rom. 1:2–4, emphasis added). Remember, as we saw in our discussion of the missions of the Son and the Spirit, the full knowledge of the Triune God only comes through the sending of the Son and the Spirit. The inclusion of the Gentiles only occurs because of Spirit-wrought union with the true Israel, the God-man, the only-begotten Son of God made flesh, sent from the Father.

[7] For a book helpful on the New Testament use of mystērion, see G.K. Beale and Benjamin L. Gladd’s Hidden but Now Revealed: A Biblical Theology of Mystery (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2014). Though the structure of their book primarily follows the NT books’ contextual use of mystērion, it gives prominent featuring of the Old Testament texts and themes which demonstrate that the Old Testament’s prospective focus inherently anticipated greater revelation to come, even greater illumination of the Old Testament itself.

Second, this gospel mystery which was concealed or “kept silent” for long ages has now been revealed and made known through the prophetic Scriptures, the Old Testament. As we saw above, the authors of the Old Testament did indeed knowingly bear witness to the eschatological work of God in the Messiah (cf. John 12:41; Acts 2:29–31). Yet, full understanding of the gospel realities of which they testified awaited illumination by the revelation which came through the sending of the Son and the Spirit, which was deposited to the apostles. Some of the very things the prophets spoke and wrote of possessed meaning still yet to be illuminated, meaning which the prophets could not have been fully privy to, given their place in God’s economy of revelation and salvation.

We must realize, however, that the prophets of old knew that some elements of their writings possessed meaning which awaited further illumination, and they expected, searched, and longed for this coming illumination when God’s saving work and revelation fully arrived. This may be illustrated briefly from Jeremiah.

In Jeremiah 23:1–8, the Lord tells of his rejection of Israel’s wicked leaders (shepherds) and foretells of the future coming of the “righteous Branch” from David who will reign as king. During his days, the salvation of the Lord will come, “and this is His name by which He will be called, ‘The LORD our righteousness.’” This prophecy of God’s future work through this mysterious Branch is further developed in Jeremiah 30. The Lord tells Jeremiah, “‘Write all the words which I have spoken to you in a book. For behold, days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will restore the fortunes of My people Israel and Judah’” (Jer. 30:2–3a). The Lord will reverse the exile and raise up “David their king” (Jer. 30:8–9). “Their prince shall be one of themselves; their ruler shall come out from their midst; I will make him draw near, and he shall approach me, for who would dare of himself to approach me? declares the LORD” (Jer. 30:21, ESV). The Lord then tells of his coming wrath which “will not turn back until he has executed and accomplished the intentions of his mind. In the latter days you will understand this” (Jer. 30:24–31:1, ESV, emphasis added). The time in which this full understanding of Jeremiah’s oracle will come is “the latter days” (bə’aḥărîṯ hayyāmîm), a phrase consistently used to refer to the eschatological time when God will work his salvation.^[8] Further, the “you” who will understand is a reference “to the restored new covenant community in the latter days,” given the context of the new covenant which will arrive when God works this salvation and judgment (Jer. 31:1, 27–40; 32:37–40).^[9]

Thus, we see Jeremiah writing down his oracles with a view toward an eschatological illumination of the very things written by the prophet himself. This is similar to Daniel’s experience of his eschatological vision in Daniel 12:1–13. Daniel is bewildered at the mysterious vision, saying “As for me, I heard but could not understand; so I said, ‘My lord, what will be the outcome of these events?’” (Dan. 12:8). But notice the angel’s reply: “‘Go your way, Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time.’” (Dan. 12:9, emphasis added; cf. Dan. 12:13).^[10] The prophets followed in the footsteps of Moses who, as the author of Hebrews tells us, “was faithful in all God’s house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken later” (Heb. 3:5, ESV). “Christ,” however, “is faithful over God’s house as a son,” the Son through whom God “has spoken to us” in “these last days” (Heb. 3:6a; 1:2).

[10] See DeRouchie, Delighting in the Old Testament, 48–50.

I believe these kinds of Old Testament texts are examples of what the apostle Peter had in mind when he asserted, “As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look” (1 Pet. 1:10–12).

The Puritan John Owen (1616–1683), who possessed a firm grasp of the Old Testament’s Christological frame of reference and the importance of the literal sense of Scripture, wrote the following worthwhile statement about this reality which will lead us into our discussion of the literal sense and reading the Old Testament today:

[The Holy Ghost] did not, indeed, so enlighten and raise [the prophetic authors’] minds as to give them a distinct understanding and full comprehension of all the things themselves that were declared unto them; there was more in their inspirations than they could search to the bottom of. Hence, although the prophets under the Old Testament were made use of to communicate the clearest revelations and predictions concerning Jesus Christ, yet in the knowledge and understanding of the meaning of them they were all inferior to John Baptist, as he was in this matter to the meanest believer, or “least in the kingdom of heaven.” Therefore, for their own illumination and edification did they diligently inquire, by the ordinary means of prayer and meditation, into the meaning of the Spirit of God in those prophecies which themselves received by extraordinary revelation, 1 Pet. i. 10, 11.^[11]

[11] John Owen, Pneumatologia, in The Works of John Owen, ed. by William H. Goold (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965), 3:132, emphasis added.

The Literal Sense and Asymmetrical Authorial Intention

Drawing these various threads together, the whole of the canon of Scripture presses us to affirm that while the Old Testament authors genuinely and knowingly wrote of God’s work through the coming Messiah in the last days, they also knew that their writings possessed meaning which went beyond what they themselves could fully grasp. This illumination could only come from revelatory “sendings” of the only begotten Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Son by whom the Father has given his final word commissioned his apostles to be “stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1), and they were active instruments by which the Spirit of Christ gave the new covenant era teaching to God’s people. The completed New Testament canon is the textual “last days” revelation of the saving work of the Triune God, accomplished by the missions of the Son and the Spirit. With the light provided from this living and active textual deposit of inspired New Covenant teaching from Christ by the Spirit, we see now the fullness of what the Old Testament authors dimly foresaw.

Both this Old Testament mystery’s initial, partial hiddenness, and subsequent, full revelation in Christ and by the Spirit coheres within a properly defined literal sense of the Old Testament. Although it is historically a much debated and diversely defined notion, I believe the literal sense of a communication is best understood as “the sum total of those illocutionary acts [i.e., the speaker’s communicative intention, whether to promise, or warn, or assert, etc.] performed by the author intentionally and with self-awareness”^[12] or, more simply, “that which the writer himself intends by his words.”^[13] Additionally, in his work, Is There a Meaning in This Text?, Vanhoozer significantly notes that the literal sense of a communication can involve an intentional open-endedness. He states, “What this means is that the literal sense—the sense of the literary act—may, at times, be indeterminate or open-ended. However—and this is crucial—the indeterminacy we are considering is intended; moreover, it is a definite feature of the meaning of the text.”^[14]

As seen above, the human prophetic authors of Scripture expected greater revelation of the salvation they themselves predicted. “Carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:21) they wrote with an eschatological frame of reference, anticipating the Spirit’s full unveiling of the hidden eschatological elements they searched out (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Their intention in conveying God’s word was self-consciously open-ended toward the full revelation to come. Their communication was not meaningless or unessential for their own day, but it involved self-consciously “fore-witnessing” in a nearsighted manner to mysteries which awaited illumination and fulfillment.^[15]

To be clear, this is not to say that the human authors and the divine author possessed different referents when communicating through these words of Old Testament Scripture. Rather, they spoke of the same thing in an asymmetrical manner. Since God spoke with full knowledge of the mysteries, God’s communicative intent included the full reality which the Old Testament authors myopically strained toward. The intention and referent of the human authors was not going a different direction than the divine author’s but simply stopped short of the clarity and coherence that God’s intention included, which would be unveiled through the revelatory missions of the Son and the Spirit. Thus, once the full illumination comes, new meaning is not added to the text, but the meaning inherent in the text all along on account of this sort of special dual authorship is unveiled.

Therefore, the human authors’ communicative intentions were completely in line with and true to the divine author’s intention but not always exhaustive of the fullness of the divine author’s intended meaning. Although this asymmetrical authorial intent existed, the prophets’ intentional open-endedness toward the full revelation of God’s communicative activity makes this dual authorship produce one literal sense, fully discernible after the missions of the Son and Spirit.^[16]

[16] This literal sense may sometimes be a compound literal sense wherein types and antitypes are included (see Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave [New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1994], 1:150–152). Van Mastricht also writes “The orthodox . . . confess that this [literal] sense is sometimes composite, as occurs in figurative and typical phrases . . . Indeed, they even call the mystical senses literal when it is certainly evident that they are intended by the Holy Spirit” (Theoretical-Practical Theology, 1:169). But even when the literal sense has this compound nature, I argue that it still involves this asymmetrical authorial intentionality where the divine author spoke in fullness (seen in the canonical context ultimately) and the human author spoke with a true but limited ultimately eschatological referent, expecting further revelation to come given the subject matter of the texts.

Conclusion

Thus, through the help of the Holy Spirit, we can now clearly see in the Old Testament the glories of our Triune God and his eschatological work concerning which the prophets of old searched and inquired diligently. We see clearly that the “son” promised in Isaiah 9:6 is Son not ultimately because of Davidic kingly lineage, but because his Father is God the Father. We see clearly the Isaianic mysteries of how Yahweh—the one who measures the water in the hollows of his hand (Isa. 40:12), who can be compared to no one (Isa. 40:18), who sits above the circle of the earth (Isa. 40:22), who does not faint or grow weary (Isa. 40:28)—could be identified with, and yet somehow distinct from, this Servant who would suffer and die as an atoning sacrifice (Isa. 9:6; 52:13, cf. 6:1; 52:13–53:12) and who would have the Spirit of Yahweh poured out upon him (Isa. 42:1; 11:1–5). We understand that the literal meaning of Isaiah 45:23–24 is that the LORD to whom “every knee will bow” and in whom alone “are righteousness and strength” is specifically the Son who is high and lifted up and through whose work many will be justified (Isa. 53:11). Clear to us now is the full beauty of the literal sense of the Spirit’s mysterious words through Zechariah who writes, “I [the LORD] will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one who mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn” (Zech. 12:10, italics added; cf. John 19:37; Rev. 1:7).

May God give us eyes to see the glory of Christ in the pages of the Old Testament both this Christmas and all our days till we see him face to face!

Of the Father’s love begotten,

Ere the worlds began to be,

He is Alpha and Omega,

He the source, the ending He,

Of the things that are, that have been,

And that future years shall see,

Evermore and evermore.

“This is he whom seers in old time

Chanted of with one accord,

Whom the voices of the prophets

Promised in their faithful word;

Now he shines, the long-expected;

Let creation praise its Lord—

[Evermore and evermore.]^[17]

[17] “Of the Father’s Love Begotten,” Hymnary.org. Accessed December 15, 2025.

1. “Religion,” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster.

Many Christians oppose “religion” due to a perceived sense of legalism or addition to the Gospel. Perhaps they witnessed friends growing up going to church, taking communion, and getting baptized, only to act as pagans the rest of the week. “Of course I’m a Christian; I go to church every week,” they say. This type of religious expression, divorced from affection, is a legitimate problem. They are right to note it. But is labeling this lack of affection as “religion” an appropriate response? Many seem to think so. For example, in a 2007 article at The Gospel Coalition, Erik Raymond quotes Mark Driscoll saying,

Religion says, if I obey, God will love me. Gospel says, because God loves me, I can obey.

Religion claims that sanctification justifies me. Gospel claims that justification enables sanctification.

Religion is about me. Gospel is about Jesus.

Religion ends in pride or despair. Gospel ends in humble joy.…^[2]

2. Erik Raymond, “Religion vs. Gospel,” The Gospel Coalition, June 10, 2007.

Of course, There are certainly problems with claiming that sanctification justifies us, and it’s right to avoid pride. Moreover, it’s right to acknowledge that the Gospel is about Christ. But claiming that religion ends in pride or despair is a great misunderstanding of what religion is, especially given that one of the few times the Bible mentions the word “religion”, it’s done so in a positive sense for the benefit of others (James 1:27).

This is the sentiment of the twentieth and twenty-first-century evangelical culture, one in which one is skeptical of traditions and institutions or any reference to duty, and where one is inclined to reduce Christianity to a moment of conversion or a mere relationship with Jesus. But this framing would not be recognized by the early church, the Reformers, or the early American Protestant tradition. Moreover, the loss of “religion” has actually contributed to a loss of ordered worship and the moral formation of Christians within the life of the church. The term “religion” is worth retrieving to re-emphasize a positive understanding of religion.

For these reasons, the popular opposition between “religion” and “the gospel” cannot bear the weight placed upon it. What follows are five ways in which this dichotomy fails to account for the nature of Christian faith, worship, and formation within the life of the church.

Why the Religion–Gospel Dichotomy Fails

1) When Legalism Becomes the Measure of All Form

The first issue about the dichotomy between Religion and Gospel is the conflation of legalism with religion. The framing is motivated by a desire to emphasize that the ceremonial aspects of the church’s liturgy are not what make one “Christian.” Relying too much on the more traditional and ritualistic aspects of the church may, according to them, drift into a reliance on outward performance rather than faith in Christ. This concern, however, mistakes the abuse of form for the purpose of form itself and treats obedience shaped by worship as though it were opposed to grace. I’ll go into this later, but a better distinction is between true religion and false religion.

An issue with this mindset is that one could be paralyzed in constantly evaluating if a religious ceremony they’re engaging in is in danger of legalism. One could engage in self-reflection at the communion table every Sunday or regularly confess sin, yet the mindset that is suspicious of religion turns self-examination into a constant background noise that really never lets up. This mindset takes good practices that are meant to form our faith and calls them into question or approaches them defensively. It says: “That’s great, you’re going to church—but remember that going to church doesn’t save you!” This type of suspicion not only reduces Christianity to questions of salvation alone, but it also weakens the church’s place in the ordinary work God uses in sanctification, or the the process of growing in holiness. Of course, there is some truth to the suspicion, but the point is a matter of emphasis.

Consider a wedding ceremony as an example and the way Protestant Americans ritualistically rehearse vows, exchange rings, order the event with words and gestures, wear special attire, and typically follow an entire liturgical order of events. We don’t view these traditions and rituals with suspicion. There are no long-form videos talking about how the exchanging of rings does not make one “married.” We don’t go out of our way to chastise the procession, or remind the new husband and wife that their first dance isn’t what really makes them husband and wife. We simply recognize these ceremonial processions as meaningful, God-honoring traditions that give structure and significance to a sacred moment. We distinguish between what establishes the covenant, what expresses it, and what sustains it. How much more meaningful, then, are the ceremonial practices associated with the church, like baptism or the Lord’s Supper?

It is, of course, worth noting that far more is happening with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper than merely symbolism; they signify and seal real spiritual realities. The comparison to a wedding is not meant to flatten that distinction but to show that ordered, repeated practices are not treated as threats to sincerity when covenant and permanence matter. Indeed, Christ himself fulfilled the ceremonial practices found in the Torah and then instituted the sacraments for the church. Christ fulfilled the law and established true religion with her weekly, ceremonial practices. As Protestants, we don’t believe in abolishing external obedience. Rather, they are ordered around him.

2) Scripture’s Own Distinction: Living Religion and Dead Religion

It’s noteworthy that the one instance in which all major Bible translations use the word “religion” is to distinguish between dead religion and true religion.^[3] James, the half-brother of Jesus, says, “If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless. Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (Jas. 1:26–27). Here James chastises the person who thinks he’s religious, but who also deceives his own heart. Notice James assumes that being “religious” is a positive characteristic. It would be similar to comparing a man who calls himself a loving father, but neglects his family. Being a loving father is good, but what use is calling oneself a loving father when his life does not match up to the qualification of such? In the same way, James is assuming that being “religious” is a good thing. So the issue James addresses is dead (or useless) religion.

3. Some translations also employ the term elsewhere. The KJV and NKJV use religion in passages like Galatians 1:13–14 (“the Jews’ religion”) and Colossians 2:18 (“religion of angels”), whereas most modern translations use the term Judaism or worship instead.

James goes on in verse 27 to define what true religion is. He doesn’t strip it of form or obligation, but locates it in a life ordered toward mercy and devotion. This devotion is made visible through care for the vulnerable and a rejection of worldly corruption. If you’ve heard the suspicion toward “religion” from modern evangelicals over the last twenty years, you’d expect James to instead divert to the common distinction between religion and Jesus. Instead, James speaks positively of true religion and orders it.

James condemns false religion, not religion itself. This is an important point because those critical of “religion” are right to criticize hypocrisy and self-righteousness. But they wrongly associate it with religion itself. A better alternative is to speak of religion as true religion vs false religion, or living religion vs dead religion. Christ, therefore, rebuked the Pharisees not for being religious, but for their hypocrisy and external-only faith devoid of genuine devotion and mercy. He rebuked them for their dead religion.

3) Jesus and the Shape of True Religion

One common claim made by those who frame religion in this way is that Jesus came to abolish religion. However, as we’ve already seen, Jesus orders religion to its proper end while also criticizing the dead religion of his opponents. But even more so, Jesus established the order and visible structure of true religion. He established the church, appointed officers for governance (Eph. 4:11–12), and commanded believers to gather for worship (Heb. 10:25), to be baptized (Matt. 28:19), to partake of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:23–26), and to live under the formative discipline of the church (Matt. 18:15–17). Note that these are all external visible practices that feature faithful obedience. The Christian life is not exclusively an inward transformation, but involves real, external practices for Christians. Even if it’s not their intention, those who make the religion/Gospel dichotomy are undermining many of the real practices intended for our good.

Many of the common phrases you hear that undermine the institutional aspects of the church are misplaced. Phrases like “Faith isn’t about what you do; it’s about what Jesus did,” or “following Jesus is not about rules”, or “God wants your heart, not your attendance” are all misleading. There may be kernels of truth in them, but when detached from the church’s ordered life, they function less as clarifications of grace and more as a justification for neglecting the forms Christ himself appointed. Rejecting religion often means rejecting Christ’s own design

When people say they reject religion, but follow Jesus, it’s similar to those who say they’re religious, but not spiritual. Often, what you see is people who claim that they just follow Jesus but reject the Ecclesiastical authority he established. It often becomes a Christianity of personal preference, where love becomes undefined, sin often becomes relative, and “following your heart” replaces Scripture as the ultimate authority.

It’s also important to note that Jesus Himself lived within the religious life of Israel. He attended synagogue worship regularly (Luke 4:16), observed appointed feasts including Passover (Luke 2:41), affirmed the goodness of the law (Matt. 5:17), honored the Sabbath even while correcting its misuse (Matt. 12:1–12), paid the temple tax (Matt. 17:24–27), and instructed healed lepers to present themselves to the priests as the law required (Matt 8:4). Again, Jesus certainly criticized the Pharisees for their self-righteousness, but he did not reject the ceremonial aspects of religion.

4) Lack of Historical Precedent

Outside of the theological and biblical cases, it’s worth noting the lack of historical precedent of rejecting religion as a concept. Our Protestant forefathers had no problem with utilizing the word “religion” in a positive sense. The Reformers did not seek to free Christianity from religion and spoke openly of true religion. The Westminster divines structured entire confessions around religious worship, duties, and discipline. Later Reformed theologians continued to speak of religion as the outward and inward ordering of one’s life according to God’s will. Likewise, our Protestant Founding Fathers in America enshrined “free exercise of religion” and often spoke of promoting true religion.

By contrast, the modern tendency to distance Jesus from religion is shaped less by inherited theological language from the early church and the Protestant tradition, but more by revivalism, pragmatism, and therapeutic sensibilities. The distinction is a departure from how the church has long understood devotion and worship.

5) What Is Lost When Religion Is Set Aside

One significant consequence of maintaining this framing is the loss of spiritual nourishment through the means by which God has ordained for His church. Many evangelicals are satisfied with attending church every now and then, participating in their own private spiritual devotions, while not realizing they are depriving themselves of the ordinary means through which God intends to strengthen faith and sustain spiritual life within the gathered body of his people. Many churches that have adopted this mindset rely less so on what is stereotypically considered “religious”—liturgy, theologically rich songs, and even public readings of the Bible—in favor of less “religious” practices. Baptism is reduced to a mere commitment, worship songs are overly sentimental, and sermons become TED talks to avoid “religion.” The irony is that in an effort to frame the issue as “Jesus versus Religion,” many have simply replaced Him with the individual self.

Take the Lord’s Supper, for example. Communion was once universally understood as a regular act of spiritual nourishment within the corporate gathering. Now the institution has been reduced to the occasional add-on, observed monthly or even less. In yet another instance of irony, downplaying communion in fear of being ritualistic or religious has lessened the gravitas of the table itself. In an effort to protect communion from being another religious ceremony, many evangelicals have taken away the weight of the ordinance entirely, approaching casually without reverence. This subtly trains the church and its people to look elsewhere for spiritual vitality, even though Christ himself promised to meet his people in this act. When the Supper is distanced from the center of worship, the church forfeits a weekly reminder that faith is sustained not by inward resolve alone, but by Christ’s real, spiritual presence given for the strengthening of his people.

This is why a better way is to distinguish between true religion and false religion instead of rejecting it entirely. This approach preserves the church’s confidence in Christ’s appointed means while guarding against hypocrisy.

Conclusion

When man’s attitudes, beliefs, and practices are dedicated toward God, it’s misguided to reject religion as something Christ came to abolish. Certainly, Christ’s attitudes, beliefs, and practices were ordered toward the Father’s. In this way, Christ is actually the most religious man to ever walk the earth. Should we not imitate our Lord? Christ orders religion properly to its good ends. When someone uses “religion” as a pejorative or makes the dichotomy between Christ and religion, they typically have good intentions. A desire to preserve the Gospel from corruption is well-intended. But in guarding against corruption, they often discard the very forms Christ instituted to preserve, shape, and sustain the life of faith within His church.

The real choice we have is not between religion and Christ, but true religion vs false religion. Christ confronted false religion because it had the appearance of devotion without its substance. Christ, then, restores true religion to its proper place. The danger of rejecting religion as a category erodes the church’s confidence in Christ’s appointed means, leaving a faith shaped by personal instinct rather than the order of life given to His people. This erosion creates a life detached from the physical communion of the saints and marked by constant inward introspection. But most of all, it robs the saints of the real joys of the ordinary means Christ has given us for devotion and spiritual nourishment.

Don’t let cultural anti-institutionalism rob you of the fullness of what God designed.

What do Moses and all idolators have in common? Each is transformed into the likeness of what they devote attention to. As Moses descends Sinai after dwelling with YHWH, his face is shining, transformed into the likeness of the holy fire he gazed upon (Exod. 34:29–35; 2 Cor. 3). Idolaters are transformed into different likenesses: depraved beasts and conniving snakes (Rom. 1:23). They focus worshipfully upon something beneath them—man-made totems of silver and gold (Isa. 46:6–7)—and thereby become in some way subhuman, that is, conformed to the image of the creation rather than Creator. As the Psalmist says: “Those who make them [i.e., idols] become like them; so do all who trust in them” (Ps. 115:4–8). Renowned biblical theologian G. K. Beale rightly notes that “people resemble what they revere, either for ruin or restoration.”^[1] As God’s image, we “always reflect something, whether it be God’s character or some feature of the world.”^[2] Yet these observations about Moses and idolaters assume something: worship requires attention.

Through attention we isolate specific points in our total sensory field, directing our souls after what we attend to.^[3] Before sin, Adam’s attention and sense of God led to a righteous honor and adoration of him, opposite the ruination consequent to suppressing the truth (see Rom. 1:18–32). After sin, man’s attention is drawn to idols, transmuting him into the form of ungodliness and unrighteousness. By grace, the redeemed heart is reoriented to God through Christ, attention (and transformation) drawn heavenward.^[4]

Attention is overloaded in today’s digital age. We are saturated with information and inundated with competing proposals of “reality,” hastening our transformation into the likeness of what we attend to. Both ruination and restoration await—depending on what we attend to. With the internet, smartphones, AI, and a host of other technological feats, Paul’s warning to attention-givers is amplified: man is ever learning but never obtaining knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 3:7). People are increasingly discipled by screens. In 2024, the Pew Research Center notes 98% of Americans ages 18–29 own a smartphone (97% for Americans ages 30–49, 91% 50–64, and 79% for 65+).^[5] More alarming, 46% of U.S. teens (13–17) use the internet “almost constantly.”^[6] As attention moves along a digital superhighway of “realities” (or gods), humanity is quickly conformed into many falsehoods—or, by God’s grace, into Christ’s image (Rom. 8:29).

To be conformed to Christ’s image, Christians must attend to his construal of reality. To do that, we must direct our attention to God’s truth rather than idols. But this is easier said than done in our digital age. In this article, I will sketch a brief and selective biblical theology of attention. I will detail how human attention is either directed toward God’s reality or the serpent’s reality within the biblical storyline. I will then discuss how modern technology amplifies these two stories, and how humanity’s mass tribute of attention to one or the other hastens both restoration and ruin, humanity moving further away and toward God (2 Tim. 3:7). I conclude with steps for Christians to steward attention wisely in order to be increasingly conformed into Christ’s image.

Attention in Innocence

Long before mainstream news outlets, a serpent near a tree told lies. Originally Adam and Eve lived in a garden overgrown with God’s truth. Everything was good (Gen. 1:31). Humanity’s reality—what to attend to—was clearly defined (Gen. 1:28). God gave one restriction: to not eat of the tree of knowledge. At this point, there was only one story available for mankind to attend to. Should the serpent have never entered, and should Adam and Eve have kept their attention upon God’s revealed will, this reality would have remained.

Attention in and After the Fall

But Eve attends to the serpent’s false story. Did God really say what he did? Lucifer twists God’s command given in Genesis 2:16–17 according to his falsehood (cf. John 8:44), and then goes further, proposing an actual false reality for Eve to attend to: “You shall not surely die” (Gen. 3:4). For the first time in the universe, a counterclaim to God’s truth is introduced to humanity. Eve pays attention to the serpent’s falsehood instead of God’s truth, and her actions follow this new focus. Adam does the same, and both become shamefully conformed to the creation rather than Creator. Instead of running to God, they fearfully hide behind creation, covering themselves in leaves (Gen. 3:8–10). Adam’s knowledge of himself is deformed. Instead of confessing his sin he shifts blame to Eve and to God (Gen. 3:12). As an idolater (one who misplaces attention and worship), Adam’s knowledge of God and self is twisted.

However, God draws humanity’s wayward attention to a promise. He divides history into two seeds: the serpent’s and the woman’s. Two stories—two realities—will overtake history. The dividing line between the seed (singular) of the woman and the seed (plural) of the serpent is this: which story will a human being pay attention to: God’s, or the serpent’s? God’s story centers on his promise: that through the enmity between the seeds, he will raise a serpent slayer—a singular seed, in whom all the promises rest (Gal. 3:16). Until the promise is consummated, both God’s truth and the serpent’s lies will compete for the eyes of the beholder. God’s truth will triumph (Gen. 3:15), but only those who attend to it—who believe in the promise—will share in that victory.

Attention in Genesis 4–11

The story of the two seeds unfolds in Genesis 4–11. Humanity at large—the seed of the serpent—devolves into fratricide and violence (Cain and Lamech in Genesis 4), death (the Genesis 5 refrain “and he died”), sexual perversion (Gen. 6:1–3), and unceasing evil (Gen. 6:5).

Simultaneously, God’s promise moves through Seth, passes down through many generations, and then rests on Noah (Gen. 4:25–26; 5:28; 6:8). God upholds his restoration story by making a covenant with Noah (Gen. 8:20–9:17). But the ruination story seduces Noah too, who becomes a drunkard, full of shameful nakedness like Adam (Gen. 9:18–29). Though Noah is conformed to death, he attended to God’s promised future city by faith (Heb. 11:7).

Humanity proliferates in Genesis 10, interconnected by one language. Humanity attends to the serpent’s lie (“you shall be like God,” Gen. 3:5) and chases it by building the Tower of Babel “in the heavens,” a construct of pride and inversion of God’s command to spread and multiply. As humanity fixates on glorifying themselves, God strikes them down, sundering their tongue and ability to sustain united attention (Gen. 11:1–9).

God continues to pen his restoration story between Babel and Christ, sketched through the covenants. Despite this, God’s people repeatedly fall into idolatry, ruined into the likeness of idols. God’s story of restoration and the serpent’s of ruin—told through the seeds—captures every mind in redemptive history. God holds his remnant’s attention by grace. But the Old Testament testifies to man’s inability to attend to God faithfully without grace. God sends his prophets to call his people’s gaze back to himself, but the people are hardened, with ears turned deaf, eyes blind, and hearts dull (Isa. 6:8–13).

Only in Christ, who pays attention fully to God’s story of restoration, is God’s truth finally unfolded, the serpent and his story crushed.

Attention in the New Covenant

The Psalmist threatens idolators that “those who make [idols] become like them; so do all who trust in them” (Ps. 115:8). But the reverse is also true! Those who pay attention to what God has done in Christ become like Christ (Rom. 8:29). In Christ, God’s story of restoration is fulfilled.

After beholding God’s redemptive purpose in Romans 9–11, the apostle Paul exhorts us in 12:1–2 to present our bodies to God, not conforming ourselves to the world’s pattern, but being transformed by the renewing of our minds. In other words, in our sin we conform to the world by attending to it rather than God. But we renew our minds by thinking upon what is revealed to us in Christ, steadfastly testing what God has for us in Christ.

In Ephesians 4:17–24 Paul commands us to remove the old self which conducted itself in a sinful way of life that was corrupted with sinful desires. Instead, Christians are to renew the spirit of their minds and to put on the new self created after the likeness of God, in true righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:22–24). Paul further enjoins believers in Colossians 3:1–11 to seek what is above with Christ, seated with God (Col. 3:1). We must set our minds on God and Christ above, not on sinful earthly things (Col. 3:2). We do this because we’ve died and raised with Christ and abide in God with him (Col. 3:3). Renewing the spirit of our minds and setting them on heavenly things changes the focus of our gaze. The sin that we once paid attention to in our idolatry is replaced with a better object: the glorious triune God. And when Christ comes, we will be with him in glory if we’ve made this attention-required pursuit of God’s city our aim. We kill sin as we attend to the fact that God’s wrath approaches to judge wickedness, which we once conformed ourselves to. We exchange this for the new self, renewed in knowledge congruent with the image of God revealed in Christ (Col. 3:4–11).

But Christians can only do this because the Spirit liberates new covenant members to boldly gaze upon Christ (2 Cor. 3:12–18). Under the Old Covenant, Moses’s face was veiled such that unregenerate Israelites would not see the outcome of what was passing away. But through the Spirit, the veil on Christ’s face has been removed!^[7] By the Spirit, we are empowered to attend to Christ, thereby being transformed incrementally into his image. Our attention upon Christ under the new covenant pays us this glorious dividend.

7. “For the law is in itself bright, but it is only when Christ appears to us in it that we enjoy its splendor.” John Calvin, Commentary on Second Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003), 183.

A Tale of Two Seeds in the Twenty-first Century

The stories of God’s restoration in Christ and the serpent’s ruination of the unrighteous continue to unfold. Society approaches “the very end” of the last days shown in the New Testament. We know from 2 Timothy 3 that during this time people will conform themselves to wickedness, slander, heartlessness, over-indulgence, and brutality. Brimming with lies, they revere hedonism rather than God (2 Tim. 3:1–6).

These days are especially marked with ever-increasing knowledge without knowing the truth, the tombstone at the end of this litany of sins (2 Tim. 3:7). People will be increasingly attentive to false, idolatrous realities which never purchase actual saving truth.

The false reality authored by the serpent in Eden will be amplified beyond measure. In Eden, Eve beheld only two proposed realities: God’s and the serpent’s. Today, one look at your phone to investigate current events (i.e. reality) gives countless different proposals. In Eden, only God, Eve, the serpent, and Adam discussed “reality.” Today, conversation about reality is overgrown with a bewildering array of dissonant voices, each beholden to a different idol—and only a few beholden to God himself.

Society approaches another Tower of Babel. Man’s tongue was sundered there, when God slowed mankind’s conspiracy for establishing unified and monolithic sin. Today, technological progress makes conspiracy against God universal again. Overlay upon this the devolution present in Romans 1:18–32, and one finds each sinful blight present in society today point-for-point. Man everywhere learns but seldom obtains true knowledge. He reveres all manner of vanities, transmuting himself into the likeness of gods he worships with finger strokes.

But by God’s gracious choice, redeemed man is ever learning and increasingly subduing the earth as commanded with this same technology (Gen. 1:28). By God’s power and the Spirit’s invincible work, redeemed man is learning more and is coming to a knowledge of the truth. By grace, God keeps his elect’s attention from Baal (Rom. 11:4).

Thus, in today’s digital age the serpent’s original lie—“Did God actually say?” (Gen. 3:1)—is amplified, his seed discipled through a cacophony of voices. But, God’s truth remains, his purpose unfailing. Mankind may be transformed into the likeness of any number of deformed half-truths, but we in Christ are remade after his image.

How Then Should We Pay Attention?

How then do we attend to God’s truth in an age overgrown with information? How are we to take the serpent’s lies captive when they are legion? Practically, to attend to God’s truth and capture the vanity of the serpent and his seed’s lies, we must take the following steps:

1. We ought recognize that only a comprehensive Christian doctrine will prevail in a world glutted with objects to pay attention to. We must have a theology that recognizes God’s sovereignty in salvation, total human inability, and the necessity of Christ’s atonement and the Spirit’s empowerment to capture the attention of wandering hearts. This is the all-encompassing worldview that will meet—and slay—the next Leviathan.

2. We must recognize that God must first grant the Spirit’s illumination in conversion for anyone to truly pay attention to God’s reality. Thus, any transformation into Christ’s image is secured by God. The stories unfolding by the two seeds—and the ruination or restoration tied to which is beheld—is therefore directed by God’s sovereign plan. This knowledge provides the Christian immovable comfort considering the proliferation of lies (and deformation of humanity) in our present day.

3. We ought recognize that the enemy’s information campaign has an all-embracing unity even in its intentional diversity. That is to say, every voice that presents an alternative reality that opposes God’s word is on the same spiritual team. The voice that says there are many gods and the voice that says there is no god both sing together in that same serpentine choir that is opposed to God and his truth.

4. We must submit every square inch of life to Scripture. Any other source of information may propose itself as reality, but actual reality will always be defined by Scripture. This means that when any entity—the media, “the science,” conspiracy theorists, politicians, those on the fringe, experts, or even a family member—contradicts God’s word, we trust God instead of man.

5. We must observe that capturing every square inch of life by Scripture’s truth requires constant reliance on the Spirit’s illumination, required for understanding Scripture. This moves us to a humble dependence upon God in prayer and a rigorous attentiveness to God’s word in order that we might rightly understand it.

6. Beyond paying attention to God’s special revelation found in his word, Christians ought pay attention to God’s truth in his natural revelation—the created world around us full of sunsets, storms, seasons, people, and places. A picture of the woods is not the same as the woods. The actual world bears witness to reality better than a thousand divergent testimonies. Putting down your phone to look at the sky, talk with a friend, or throw a frisbee are superior truths to any imitations online.^[8]

8. Natural revelation—without Scripture and the Spirit—no longer results in natural theology as it did for Adam. Scripture as our spectacles and the Spirit’s inward testimony are necessary.

7. Christians should avoid habits that incline their attention to the enemy’s information campaign, which is amplified by technology. While further discussion is needed on social media algorithms, these are inarguably designed to create positive feedback loops that capture our attention and draw us further in. A small enemy foothold—a single YouTube short, an Instagram reel, or a TikTok video—can quickly turn into “doomscrolling” which fixes our attention and bends our hearts and affections to its doom-filled narrative. Christians should both repent of, and proactively protect themselves against, the enemy’s technological disinformation campaign.

8. To attend to God’s truth and tear down idols, Christians must know their “first principles.” Many leading the tech revolution hold anti-Christian worldviews, and they consider humans as merely an evolved conglomeration of facts, rather than God’s unique image. Advances in technology or AI seeking to redefine “what is real” or “what is human” are founded on false presuppositions. For example, if one fears AI will replace humans, we must ask: in whose world? God’s? In God’s world, humans are irreplaceable. AI will never be human, because being human means being made in God’s image, in covenant with him and accountable to him. We must approach technology and information—as any other area—with expressly Christian assumptions. No neutral ground exists.

9. Finally, the church needs more Daniels who dwell in the king’s house and orient it towards God’s story (true reality). As no square inch is beyond God’s authoritative claim, digital spaces are God’s. They are ripe for capture. We need those who will enter those spaces and, amidst the whirlwind, hold fast to reality’s only centering lodestone, Scripture, paying no attention to idols. God’s word is the light in every dark valley, technological ones no different.

Conclusion

Christians are uniquely commissioned by God with proclaiming his reconciliation story, told in Christ’s person and work. This ministry should steel our hearts as we engage the enemy’s misinformation campaign (2 Cor. 4:1). Even though God’s story is veiled to those perishing—blinded by this world’s god and his false story—we who attend to Christ proclaim his glory, holding fast to the fact that God alone cuts through darkness and chaos, shining in the glorious face of his Son (2 Cor. 4:3–6; Gen. 1:3).

Christian, today you have this treasure of Christ within you, a surpassing power and glorious fire by which to burn through lies and warm you in every dark, cold place (2 Cor. 4:7–11). Today’s affliction—unfolding around us in a tirade of lies—is momentary and light, and is in fact one of God’s means for preparing us for an incomparable glory as we look through this affliction and perceive God’s purpose shining through, by which we are renewed (2 Cor. 4:16–18). So hold fast to God’s truth, knowing that the serpent’s lie will continue to unfold, and that in this process, the God of peace will soon crush Satan under our feet (Rom. 16:20).

“This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me”
—Jesus

The Christmas music played in the background as Jack wrapped packages. While the music brought back many happy memories, recent events took his mind in another direction.

Work at the courthouse was increasingly difficult. Last year they removed the Ten Commandments. This year county employees received a memo requesting everyone to tone down “Christmas” rhetoric. They didn’t outright censor “Merry Christmas,” but they might as well have.

Closer to home Jerrod received his yearly Christmas list: Put up the tree. Buy non-perishables for the church’s homeless offering. Put up the crèche. Have some holiday cheer.

“Very funny,” Jerrod thought to himself. “My wife thinks of everything: Have holiday cheer!”

And she did. She knew the pressures of work and the added stress of church had made Jerrod more than just a “grouchy bear,” as she liked to call him. Only two weeks remained until Christmas, and he was overwhelmed with Christmas events at church. And as a result his Joy to the Lord was out of tune. So to spark his Christmas spirit, Jerrod’s wife put him to work on the crèche he loved. It worked marvelously.

*****

The crèche was Jerrod’s pride and joy. When his kids moved out of the house, he took a whole year to make a life-size nativity. He loved to tell people he crafted it by hand. Their astonishment (and compliments) always pleased him. His no-nonsense reputation as Washington County’s District Attorney had earned him the nickname, “the hammer.” But now with an artisan’s touch, he showed another side.

It always surprised people that he was so passionate about Christmas. After all it was during this time of the year that he was most on edge. But he put that thought aside as he pulled out all the pieces. He liked to think of himself like Joseph, that great carpenter of old, who had so wonderfully taught Jesus all he knew about woodworking.

He went to work on the manger. It took hours to unload half the garage, but when he was through, he stepped back and cited one of his favorite verses, “It is finished.” He couldn’t remember where that verse came from, but he liked to say it to himself whenever he won a case—or finished such a magnificent project.

*****

Two thousand years ago another Jerrod—Herod to be exact—was renowned for his artistic feats too. Among his many projects, he rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem. And like Jerrod, he became deeply interested in Jesus’s birth. Matthew 2 tells his story.

When wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, Herod heard they sought the Jewish messiah. Being deeply concerned for the peace and prosperity of the nation, he too inquired into the birth of this child.

He learned the wise men had traveled from afar to worship him, and a star had led them to Jerusalem. Such exciting news stirred the whole city; everyone was talking about what this child meant to them—peace, joy, and national restoration.

Herod too was excited, but for other reasons. He knew such a child would need to be protected. After all, if the most powerful and wise men from the nations came to worship him, there is no telling who else would seek his court.

A student of history, Herod took interest in the ancient prophecies. He had heard about a coming messiah, and so he invited his favorite teachers to come and instruct him in the ancient words. He was troubled that he might miss the birth of such a king.

The chief priests and scribes who attended Herod had served him for years. They knew his anger and severity, but put up with him for the many things he had done for Israel—not least of which was building the most glorious temple in Israel’s history. Though they were uncomfortable with his violence, as priests they reasoned that a little bloodshed was better than a lot of bloodshed.

From the priests Herod learned the Jewish king would come from Bethlehem. In turn, he called the wise men and sent them on a covert mission to find the child. Deeply concerned with the birth of Jesus, he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, “Go and search diligently for the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, that I too may come and worship him.”

Some of the chief priests and scribes found his desire to worship bizarre, sort of like the way Jerrod’s co-workers puzzled over Jerrod’s obsession with Christmas. But others surmised Herod was changing, perhaps even on account of their working relationship. All in all, it looked like the making of a very good Christmas: the Christ-child would be worshiped by wise men and Herod alike.

*****

Jerrod got ready for church. He groomed his beard and looked out the window. What started as a warm gaze at his crèche soon turned into an intense squint. A light dusting of snow covered the earth, but his yard wasn’t white.

He noticed footprints encircling the nativity. And what he saw was a great obscenity. All the characters had been rearranged. The holy family was stationed outside the stable. The animals were gathered around the manger. In the arms of Mary was a sheep. And baby Jesus was put underneath the cow’s udder.

Horrible thoughts raced through Jerrod’s mind. Those stupid kids! And Scripture: “What God has joined together, let no man separate.” He thought that verse had to do with something else, but it sure seemed to fit.

Jerrod raced to finish his shave and then jumped down the stairs to rescue Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. “It’s children like this who grow up to be in my court,” he muttered.

Fifteen minutes later, the crèche was safe, and he was on his way to church—worried sick about what might happen next.

*****

In the ensuing weeks, Herod learned he’d been tricked by the wise men. Impelled by betrayal and worship, Herod desperately sought to find the child. So great was his desire to find this baby, he sent an envoy on horseback.

His army was to find every child born in the region and return with good news. But tidings of Christmas cheer would not find the man who wanted to worship the baby in the manger. While his lips feigned worship to Jesus, his heart worshiped something else—the work of his own hands.

When his soldiers returned, they told him the gruesome news. All the children had been killed, just as Herod had ordered when he said, “Kill them all.”

*****

Two thousand years later, in a snow-covered cul-de-sac sits Jerrod’s crèche. This year, despite the threat of vandalism, his crèche had more visitors than ever. The newspaper story about “The Hammer’s Holy Habit” spotlighted his artistic side and drew in many new admirers. He even had a few church groups stop by.

Jerrod was increasingly proud of his crèche. But he was also anxious about all the last-minute details for the Christmas event. When Christmas Eve arrived, he was flustered but not fuming. All the hard work he had put into the performance paid off, and the annual event was the best it had been in years. At church, Jerrod thanked everyone for making this the best Christmas he could remember. His holiday cheer had returned. And right on time.

*****

Jerrod joked with his wife in the parking lot that he had just checked off the last item on his Christmas list. She laughed and they drove home in the snow.

As Jerrod and his wife returned home, they basked in the success of the night. They were deeply thankful for Christ’s birth and for the season he had given them. Joy to the world had returned . . . until the lights of their Lexus illumined the crèche—which had been overrun in the last hour by a storm of children in the year’s first snowball fight.

Jerrod’s wife braced his arm, but Jerrod was out the door in a flash. He ran to the scene of the carnage. Broken was Joseph’s leg. Severed was Mary’s arm. Overturned was the manger. And trampled was baby Jesus.

Aghast, Jerrod looked into the streets with rage in his eyes. He muttered something under his breath, and then in a voice reminiscent of Ramah, he roared: “Those kids! Those stupid kids! They ruined Christmas! I’m going to kill them! Kill ’em all.”

*****

“For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.”
—Jesus

This Christmas, may Christ’s light shine on our hearts.
May it expose sin and our great need for salvation.
Jesus came into the world to save sinners and
to save those who love Christmas more than Christ.
This Christmas may our hearts love Christ more
than any other thing our hands have made.

Seeing as the way to destruction is wide and easy (Matt. 7:13), the concern Paul conveyed to the Christians in Corinth is particularly potent for us today. Being aware of the threat that “philosophy and empty deceit” (Col. 2:8) pose to the Church, Paul warned that “as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3). In a religiously pluralistic culture, it is essential for Christians to be able to defend the exclusivity of Christ for salvation, which is founded upon his uniqueness. In what follows, I’d like to herald the truth that establishes the exclusivity of Christ—the Incarnation—in order to show that pluralistic ideologies do not accord with God’s word.

Why the God-Man?

Why focus on the doctrine of the Incarnation in the face of religious pluralism? Simply put, underlying the shift towards pluralism is a defective answer to Jesus’s question: “Who do you say that I am?” An apt illustration of this point can be found in Hick’s book, The Metaphor of God Incarnate. Hick argues: “Within early Christianity Jesus was identified as God’s new anointed one of the royal house of David, who would in his second coming usher in the great Day of the Lord. However, as the second coming failed to occur, Jesus was gradually elevated within the Gentile church to a divine status.”³ Thus, according to Hick, the deity of Christ was a later development in the theology of the Church and was not a serious consideration for those who walked with Jesus during his earthly ministry.⁴

Hick’s motivation for such an assertion is far from neutral. If God has truly appeared in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, teaching things such as: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6)—what case can be made for the possibility of salvation apart from faith in Jesus? Hick admits as much, as he rightly recognizes that the Incarnation, if true, “would seem to demand Christian exclusivism.”⁵ As a result, those committed to religious pluralism must reinterpret the Incarnation to fit within their pluralistic framework. In other words, for the pluralist, the Incarnation must mean something less than “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”⁶

While pluralists such as Hick would like to retain the title of “Christian,” to deny the Incarnation is to rob Christianity of any and all soteriological, that is, salvific, relevance. If Jesus of Nazareth was just a man, he has no more ability to “save to the uttermost” (Heb. 7:25) than any other religious figure throughout history.⁷ This is because, as the Psalmist says, “truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life” (Ps. 49:7). As the great theologian Francis Turretin has succinctly put it: “our mediator ought to be God-man . . . man alone could die for men; God alone could vanquish death.”⁸ As such, the ontological uniqueness of Jesus as the God-man provides the basis for his soteriological exclusivity. In other words, it is because Jesus is truly God and truly man that he is uniquely qualified to be the exclusive Savior of the world.

A Three-Fold Defense of the Incarnation

Given the foundational importance of the Incarnation, I briefly want to present a three-fold defense from the biblical text that can be employed as Christians seek to confront the challenge of pluralism, specifically as it relates to the doctrine of the Incarnation. The defense can be easily recalled with these three words: Expectation, Fulfillment, Acceptance:

1. The Old Testament Scriptures expect a Messiah who is truly human and truly divine.
2. Jesus’s teachings and signs demonstrate that he is the fulfillment of that expectation.
3. The eyewitnesses and earliest Christians accepted Jesus’s testimony as being the God-man.

Let’s consider each of these points in more detail.

1. The Old Testament Scriptures expect a Messiah who is truly human and truly divine.

The expectations concerning the Messiah appear as early as Genesis 3. In pronouncing the curse upon the serpent, the Lord declares: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15). From this declaration on, the key question the Old Testament seeks to answer is this: Who is this promised offspring? He is the only one mentioned who can undo what Satan has wrought.

As the narrative unfolds, it is revealed that the promised child will come from the line of Judah (Gen. 49:10), and then the line of David.

While thus far it is clear that the promised Messiah would come as a man, we must also reckon with the attributes ascribed to him that, while not denying his humanity, point to him being more than just a man. Consider, for example, the prophet Isaiah. As Isaiah spoke of the future deliverance of God’s people, he prophesied about a child. This child would be conceived in the womb of a virgin (Isa. 7:14; cf. Matt. 1:23) and would be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” He would grow up to sit upon “the throne of David” to establish and uphold his kingdom “with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forever” (Isa. 9:6–7). Not only is this child the promised seed of David, but he is given names that only rightfully belong to God. Ultimately, this promised child, while a man, would at the same time be Immanuel, “God with us”—exactly what God’s people need.

Although the examples could be multiplied (e.g., Isa. 40:3; Zech. 12:10; Ps. 110:1; Mic. 5:2; Dan. 7:13–14), the brief survey above is enough to make plain that the identity of the Messiah and the identity of Yahweh blend together. That is, the work accomplished by the Messiah is the work accomplished by the one, true God. While it is true that the prophets did not necessarily understand with absolute clarity that God would take on flesh, such expectations help us make sense of the witness Jesus provided, to which we will now turn.

2. Jesus’s teachings and signs demonstrate that he is the fulfillment of that expectation.

Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:1; cf. Mic. 5:2). He had a mother, brothers, a cousin. The humanity of Jesus is hard to escape as we read the New Testament. But as the New Testament witness makes clear, Jesus is not just a man. While space prohibits us from a fully fleshed-out defense of his deity, we can consider a few points.

One of the earliest characteristics of Jesus’s teaching ministry recorded in Mark’s Gospel is that he captivated audiences, “for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes” (Mark 1:22). From where is this authority? On multiple occasions, Jesus said things that would be considered blasphemous for any human to say. Consider the miracle of Jesus healing the paralytic in Mark 2. Some of the scribes who witnessed this miracle accused him of blasphemy, asking “who can forgive sins but God alone?” Immediately, Jesus gave a demonstration that he in fact can forgive sins, and he does so by having the formerly paralyzed man stand up to prove Jesus’s authority. Other statements from Jesus such as being Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8), one with the Father (John 10:30), the resurrection and the life (John 11:25), and I AM (John 8:58), make clear the basis of his authority—he is God in the flesh. As such, he alone has the authority to do the works of God.

Jesus’s witness concerning his identity extended beyond his teachings—time after time he performed signs that gave substantive proof that he did not speak on his own authority, but he only spoke what he was commanded by his Father (John 12:49). Of course, the greatest sign concerning the identity of Jesus is that of his death and resurrection (cf. Rom. 1:3–4). Jesus being hoisted upon a cursed tree and being laid into a borrowed tomb only to rise three days later with the keys to death in his hand is the ultimate testimony that he is both the eternal Word of God (cf. John 1:1) and the promised Davidic Son of Man.

In the time leading up to and immediately following his death and resurrection, Jesus repeatedly stated to his disciples that he must suffer, die, and be raised in order that the Scriptures be fulfilled (e.g., Matt. 26:54, 26:56; Mark 9:12; Luke 18:31–33, 22:37, 24:26–27, 24:44–46). How does this vindicate the reality of the Incarnation? As argued above, the Old Testament predicted that the Messiah, who is identified as Yahweh himself, would suffer, die, and rise from the dead to accomplish salvation for his people—Jesus unreservedly taught that his own suffering, death, and resurrection were necessary to fulfill that prediction. Because Jesus is the God-man, as demonstrated by his death and resurrection, he alone can stand in the gap between God and man, interceding for his people at the right hand of his Father on the basis of his own sufficient blood.

3. The eyewitnesses and earliest Christian communities accepted Jesus’s testimony as being the God-man.

The witness of the New Testament is abundantly clear that the eyewitnesses and earliest Christians accepted Jesus’s testimony that he was truly man and truly God on account of his resurrection from the dead. Following the resurrection, some believed; others doubted. Thomas, for example, refused to believe that Christ had truly risen unless he could see the marks the nails left upon his hands and feel his side which was pierced (John 20:25). In an act of great compassion, Jesus meets the demand by coming to Thomas, allowing him to see for himself. Upon feeling the wounds which marked the Lord, Thomas’s unbelief was undone as he cried out: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). If Jesus were just a man, we would expect a scathing rebuke to Thomas. But no such rebuke comes. As the resurrected Messiah, Jesus accepts the worship given to him—and this would be blasphemy of the highest degree if he were not in fact God Incarnate.

In his writings, the Apostle Paul has no reservations in confirming both the manhood and deity of the Christ. For example, in his letter to the Christians in Rome Paul says the Gospel of God, which was promised by the prophets, concerned Jesus, “who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead” (Rom. 1:1–4). Elsewhere Paul explicitly calls Jesus both God (Titus 2:13) and man (1 Tim. 2:5). It is on the basis of Jesus’s existence as the God-man Paul would write things like: “For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:17). Only God in the flesh could overturn the disastrous effects of the Fall.

The evidence that the earliest Christians accepted Jesus as the God-man is found beyond the pages of the New Testament. This is plain in the fact that the early Church was enveloped in all sorts of Christological heresies that denied either the true humanity (Docetism, Gnosticism) or the true deity (Arianism) of Christ. In response to such controversies, the Church articulated the New Testament witness concerning the identity of Jesus which led to formulations such as that of Chalcedon that affirm “our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man.”⁹

9. For a more complete defense of the deity of Christ, see Robert M. Bowman and J. Ed. Komoszewski, The Incarnate Christ and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2024).

Conclusion

Religious pluralism has paved a wide road to hell. To deny the Incarnation and subsequent exclusivity of Christ is to deny the Gospel which “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16). Christians must hold fast to the confession that Jesus Christ is, in the most literal sense, God Incarnate. Through the expectations of the Old Testament, Jesus’s fulfillment of those expectations, and the acceptance of the earliest Christians, we may be confident that the eternal Word became flesh and dwelt among us. This truth, the truth of the Incarnation, not only provides the basis for the uniqueness of Jesus, but ultimately, his exclusivity as the Savior of the world. And it is on the basis of the Incarnation, we may boldly say: “There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

The Dead End of Common Proposals

Most proposals supply a missing name, count Mary as a generational link, or double-count one figure. Some count Jesus twice—once at his first advent and again at his second, or once before and once after his resurrection.

A common option counts Jechoniah twice—once as the deposed king of Judah and again as the honored dignitary in Babylon.^[1] D. A. Carson questions this reading, noting that “Matthew does not mention these themes, which do not clearly fit into the main concerns of this chapter,” and concludes, “No solution so far proposed seems entirely convincing.”^[2]

W. D. Davies and Dale Allison consider double-counting David the best option, though still unsatisfying, since “David alone would then be counted twice, certainly an odd circumstance.” Their conclusion is sobering: “Perhaps it is best, therefore, simply to ascribe a mathematical blunder to Matthew.”^[3]

Such proposals all founder for the same reason. They attempt to resolve the discrepancy by focusing on the list of names, but they never ask the prior question: what, precisely, is Matthew counting?

Matthew 1:2–16: The “Begettings”

The answer lies in Matthew’s wording itself—specifically, in the repeated verb by which the genealogy advances:

1:2 Abraham begot Isaac

Isaac begot Jacob

Jacob begot Judah and his brothers

1:3 Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar

Perez begot Hezron

Hezron begot Ram

1:4 Ram begot Amminadab

Amminadab begot Nahshon

Nahshon begot Salmon

1:5 Salmon begot Boaz by Rahab

Boaz begot Obed by Ruth

Obed begot Jesse

1:6 Jesse begot David the king

David begot Solomon by the wife of Uriah

1:7 Solomon begot Rehoboam

Rehoboam begot Abijah

Abijah begot Asaph

1:8 Asaph begot Jehoshaphat

Jehoshaphat begot Joram

Joram begot Uzziah

1:9 Uzziah begot Jotham

Jotham begot Ahaz

Ahaz begot Hezekiah

1:10 Hezekiah begot Manasseh

Manasseh begot Amos

Amos begot Josiah

1:11 Josiah begot Jechoniah and his brothers at the time of the deportation to Babylon

1:12 After the deportation to Babylon,

Jechoniah begot Shealtiel

Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel

1:13 Zerubbabel begot Abiud

Abiud begot Eliakim

Eliakim begot Azor

1:14 Azor begot Zadok

Zadok begot Achim

Achim begot Eliud

1:15 Eliud begot Eleazar

Eleazar begot Matthan

Matthan begot Jacob

1:16 Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom

Jesus was begotten, who is called Christ

The error in every proposal is the assumption that the problem resides with the names. It does not. Matthew is not tallying individuals; he is counting generations by “begettings.” Count the begettings, and Matthew’s full design comes into view.

Counting Begettings, Not Names

Matthew defines each generation by a form of the verb gennaō (“to beget”). English versions soften the force of this repeated verb by paraphrasing it as something like “was the father of” and by changing its meaning in Matthew 1:16b to “was born.” Matthew 1:17 subtly reinforces the pattern through its fourfold use of the noun geneai (“generations”), a word that echoes gennaō in both sound and sense:

1:17 So all the generations [geneai] from Abraham to David were fourteen generations,

and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the

deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.

In this genealogy, a generation is a begetting—a father-descendant relationship denoted by the verb gennaō. That begetting event is the basic structural unit of the genealogy. Unlike Luke’s lineage, which proceeds name by name (Luke 3:23–38), Matthew’s advances by begettings. The numbering below reflects Matthew’s logic: each generative act counts as one generation.

1. Abraham begot [egennēsen] Isaac

2. Isaac begot Jacob

3. Jacob begot Judah and his brothers

4. Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar

…

37. Eleazar begot Matthan

38. Matthan begot Jacob

39. Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom

40. Jesus was begotten [egennēthē], who is called Christ

Each generation consists of a father and his descendant(s) bound together by the verb gennaō. The first thirty-nine instances of the verb are active (egennēsen, “begot”), each denoting a father’s act of begetting. The final instance shifts to the passive (egennēthē, “was begotten”)—a divine passive that signals God’s act of begetting, not Joseph’s.^[4] The movement is deliberate and climactic: thirty-nine human begettings (vv. 2–16a) and one divine begetting (v. 16b).

4. For the grammatical significance of this divine passive, see Charles Lee Irons, A Syntax Guide for Readers of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2016), 21.

We will see shortly how these forty generations become three sets of fourteen. First, though, we must observe that Matthew’s method of numbering generations is not idiosyncratic but is grounded in Scripture’s earliest genealogical pattern.

Matthew and Genesis: Resuming the Line of Promise

Matthew uses the same begetting verb that forms the backbone of the oldest biblical genealogies. In the Greek Bible, the primeval genealogies in Genesis 5:3–32 and 11:10–26 are each organized around gennaō, and their generational count is determined by the number of begettings, not the number of names. Each of these two genealogies names eleven figures but contains only ten generations, because only ten begettings occur.^[5]

5. Thus, both Wenham and Hamilton note the “ten generations” in Genesis 5:3–32. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, WBC 1 (Dallas: Word, 1987), 124; Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 246.

Here are the ten begettings in Genesis 5:3–32:

1. Adam begot [egennēsen] Seth

2. Seth begot Enosh

3. Enosh begot Kenan

4. Kenan begot Mahalalel

5. Mahalalel begot Jared

6. Jared begot Enoch

7. Enoch begot Methuselah

8. Methuselah begot Lamech

9. Lamech begot Noah

10. Noah begot Shem

Noah’s son Shem is the eleventh name in the line of descent, but he does not beget in this genealogy and therefore adds no generation.

Genesis 11:10–26 likewise comprises ten father-descendant generations, each bound together by the verb gennaō:

1. Shem begot [egennēsen] Arphaxad

2. Arphaxad begot Cainan

3. Cainan^[6] begot Shelah

4. Shelah begot Eber

5. Eber begot Peleg

6. Peleg begot Reu

7. Reu begot Serug

8. Serug begot Nahor

9. Nahor begot Terah

10. Terah begot Abram

6. The Hebrew text of Genesis 11 omits Cainan’s generation, but Luke 3:36 includes it, matching the Greek Old Testament.

Terah’s son Abram is the eleventh name in the sequence, but he does not beget in this genealogy and therefore adds no generation.

In both Genesis genealogies and in Matthew’s genealogy, the number of begettings—not the number of names—determines the generational total.

Matthew anchors his genealogy in Genesis not only by reusing the same begetting verb as the Genesis genealogies but also by adopting, at the head of his Gospel, the same “book of the genesis” formula found in Genesis 2:4 and 5:1. His first words—“the book of the genesis [biblos geneseōs] of Jesus Christ” (Matt. 1:1)—echo the only two other uses of this expression in the Greek Bible: “the book of the genesis of the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 2:4) and “the book of the genesis of mankind” (Gen. 5:1). These headings frame the primeval history. Within the broader narrative, the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 trace the line of promise from Adam to Abram, where the primeval begetting sequence pauses.

Matthew picks up precisely where the Genesis genealogies leave off: “Abraham begot [egennēsen] Isaac” (Matt. 1:2). His genealogy continues the line of promise and shows its fulfillment in the advent of Jesus the Messiah, whose genesis—like the creation of the world and mankind (Gen. 2:4; 5:1)—comes by God’s direct agency.

The Hinge Generations: Counting Twice What Matthew Counts Twice

We can now return to the central question: How does Matthew turn the forty generations that complete the line of promise into three sets of fourteen?

Matthew’s three fourteens work because two generations—David’s generation and the deportation generation—are double-counted. Matthew 1:17 makes this explicit: “from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.” The two repeated points—David and the deportation to Babylon—function as hinges: each closes one group of fourteen and opens the next.

1. David’s generation as the first hinge

David’s generation ends the first group (Abraham → David) and begins the second (David → the deportation). It is therefore counted twice.

2. The deportation generation as the second hinge

The second hinge is likewise a generation, one signified not by a person’s name but by an event: “the deportation to Babylon.” The deportation generation ends the second group (David → the deportation) and begins the third (the deportation → the Christ). It is therefore counted twice.

Which generation coincides with the deportation? Josiah’s generation does. Some interpreters place the pivot at Jechoniah, but in verse 11 Matthew locates Josiah’s generation “at the time of the deportation to Babylon,” and in verse 12 he locates the next generation (Jechoniah’s) “after the deportation to Babylon.” This shift—from “at” to “after”—shows exactly where the hinge falls: Josiah’s generation, not Jechoniah’s.

David’s and Josiah’s generations are each counted twice. This is how Matthew turns forty generations into three sets of fourteen.

If Matthew were tallying names, the math would break here, because the line from Josiah to Jesus includes fifteen figures, not fourteen. But Matthew is not counting individuals; he is numbering geneai (“generations”) by the verb gennaō (“to beget”).

Since Joseph is never the subject of gennaō, he contributes no generation to the count. He belongs to his father Jacob’s generation as its descendant, but the begetting line does not continue through him. The Father adds the final generation.

When the genealogy is read on its own terms, the count resolves cleanly: forty begettings yield forty generations, the hinges at David and the deportation are each double-counted, and the fourteens stand.

The two hinges represent the rise and fall of Israel’s monarchy. David—whom Matthew pointedly calls “the king” (1:6)—inaugurates the kingdom; the deportation ends it. The first hinge opens the Davidic line; the second witnesses its collapse.^[7] These two turning points propel the genealogy toward its goal: the arrival of the Son of David.

7. Even the first hinge foreshadows the decline of the monarchy: the mention of “the wife of Uriah” (Matt. 1:6) recalls David’s sin and anticipates the unraveling made manifest in the deportation.

Christward Collapse: Josiah and the Deportation

Matthew compresses the royal line when he writes, “Josiah begot Jechoniah and his brothers at the time of the deportation to Babylon” (1:11). Josiah was Jechoniah’s grandfather (1 Chr. 3:15–16), and Matthew is not suggesting otherwise. This kind of telescoping appears elsewhere in biblical genealogies (Ezra 7:1–5; cf. 1 Chr. 6:3–15).

“Jechoniah and his brothers” refers to Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jechoniah, and Zedekiah (2 Kgs. 23:30–25:7), the kings who reigned after Josiah’s death from 609 to 586 BC, culminating in Jerusalem’s fall and the nation’s exile.^[8] Matthew ties Josiah’s begetting to the deportation not because Jechoniah and his brothers were born then—they were not—but because the deportation is the point at which the royal line collapses. By linking Josiah to that moment, Matthew sets his righteous reign in contrast to the unfaithful kings who followed and failed.

8. Jehoahaz (Shallum), Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah were sons of Josiah; Jechoniah (Jehoiachin) was his grandson (1 Chr. 3:15–16). Chronicles calls Jechoniah “the captive” (1 Chr. 3:17), underscoring his association with the deportation—the collapse that Matthew highlights. Chronicles also refers to Zedekiah as Jechoniah’s “brother” (2 Chr. 36:10), a familial usage Matthew extends to Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim.

Matthew 1:11 draws the last faithful Davidic king, the fall of the monarchy, and the nation’s exile into a single moment—the hinge at which human kingship failed and the expectation of a greater David became Israel’s only hope (Jer. 30:9; Ezek. 37:24–25; cf. Hos. 3:5; Amos 9:11). That hope finds its fulfillment in the Son of David, who was “begotten by the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 1:20) and “born king of the Jews” (Matt. 2:2).

Matthew and Nicaea: The Begetting of the Incarnate Son

English versions translate the passive of gennaō in Matthew 1:16 as “was born.” The ESV renders the clause “Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Up to that point in the genealogy, however, gennaō has referred every time to a father’s begetting of a child, never to a mother’s giving birth. In Matthew 1:16, then, the phrase should read “was begotten.”^[9] Matthew presents Mary not as giving birth but as the human means by which the Father begets Jesus, so the clause is best rendered “Mary, by [ek] whom Jesus was begotten.”

9. Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1–7: A Continental Commentary, trans. Wilhelm C. Linss (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 106 n. 19.

The context confirms this reading. Matthew uses the same preposition (ek, “by”) with every woman in the genealogy: “by Tamar … by Rahab … by Ruth … by the wife of Uriah … by whom” (Matt 1:3, 5, 6, 16). In each case, ek marks the woman as the maternal means of a paternal begetting.^[10] In short, ek throughout the genealogy indicates the mother’s role generally, not birth specifically. And nothing changes in Mary’s case in Matthew 1:16: gennaō still denotes a paternal begetting and ek still marks the maternal means of a paternal begetting.^[11]

Matthew 1:20 repeats the “passive of gennaō + ek” construction. This time, however, ek marks not the maternal means but the divine means of the Father’s begetting. The angel tells Joseph that “the one begotten in her is by [ek] the Holy Spirit.”^[12] This verse makes the meaning of gennaō unmistakable. The passive cannot mean “born” here; a child is not born “in” a mother. It means “begotten,” referring to the Father’s generative act. Traditional English versions translate gennaō in verse 20 as “conceived.” This customary rendering describes the phenomenon but masks the verbal tie to verse 16 and blunts Matthew’s theological point: the Father is the source of this Son. In both verses, the passive form of gennaō should be translated “begotten,” with ek rendered “by.”

In sum, Matthew uses the “passive of gennaō + ek” construction the same way in verses 16 and 20: gennaō refers to the Father’s begetting of Jesus, and ek denotes the means—whether human or divine—by which that begetting occurs. Matthew thus distinguishes the two means of the one begetting: the Father begot Jesus through Mary as the human means and through the Spirit as the divine means. Matthew 1:18 combines them in a single declaration: “she was found to be with child by [ek] the Holy Spirit.”

By contrast, whenever Matthew refers to Mary’s act of giving birth, he switches verbs, consistently using tiktō (Matt. 1:21, 23, 25). In the genealogy and through verse 20, he uses gennaō exclusively for paternal begetting, never for birth. In those verses, human fathers beget sons, and the Father begets the Son in the incarnation.

The Nicene Creed mirrors Matthew’s Christological grammar. It confesses that the Son was made flesh “by [ek] the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,”^[13] using a single ek to govern both persons while preserving their distinct roles. The Son is begotten of the Father from eternity; in the incarnation, the Father begot the Son in time and in flesh through the Spirit and through Mary. In this way, the eternal Son of God took to himself our human nature.

13. The Creed reads ek pneumatos hagiou kai Marias tēs parthenou (“by the Holy Spirit and [by] the virgin Mary”). A single ek governs both nouns. The common English rendering “by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary” reflects the later Latin form (de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria virgine) rather than the Greek text. See Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 2, The Greek and Latin Creeds (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1890), 57.

The Genealogy as Gospel

The New Testament opens not with a gaffe but with the gospel. Matthew made no miscalculation; he made a theological declaration. The long line of human fathers does not culminate in a miscount but in a miracle: the advent of the God-man.

The incarnation is the point. The genealogy calls us to behold what generations could not supply and what only the Father could give. Joseph is not the exception in the begetting sequence; he is its emblem. No one in this genealogy begets the Christ—not Abraham, not David, not Joseph. The lineage confers messianic legitimacy and then steps aside for God to beget the Messiah. In so doing, the genealogy bears witness to the fulfillment of the primeval promise of a seed who would come through a woman but not through a man (Gen. 3:15; Isa. 7:14).

In Matthew’s understated irony, a genealogy of men becomes the herald of the Son no man could beget. The gospel does not hide in this genealogy; it shines through it. The Son of Abraham and Son of David is, at last, the only begotten Son—the one who “will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21) and bring many sons to glory.