I admit I enjoy his writing style because of its clarity and common sense way of explaining things. However, it is at the expense of the plain reading of the text. Within you will find such statements as death not meaning eternal hell, distinguishing between having eternal life and having eternal life in you, and that Jesus’ preaching of repentance was meant for the Jews of that period only. It seems that Hodges will do anything to a passage to make it say what he wants. To cover this up, he often shames his readers away from the Lordship interpretation by statements like (again paraphrasing), “The author could not have put it any plainer,” or “To ignore this is to ignore all common sense.” These statements are empty, however, if not backed up with clear, faithful exegesis.
In this post we shall cover the first three chapters. Continue reading Accusations, Assurance, and James 2: A Critique of Zane Hodges’ “The Gospel Under Siege”, pt. 1