Today, black holes are a common feature of cultural thinking. They’ve become the backdrop for numerous space movies, novels, shows, and cultural idioms. Your typical “everyday” person undoubtedly has heard of a black hole and has a rudimentary understanding of what it is. It is (or was) a massive star that has collapsed in on itself due to its mass, concentrating a large amount of matter into such a small space that the gravitational force created becomes greater than even light can escape.

Interestingly, long before Einstein proposed his theory of general relativity which provided the mathematical foundation for black holes, the theoretical concept of an object so densely massive that light couldn’t escape had already been postulated 130 years earlier in the late 18th century using Newtonian physics. Both John Michell from England and Pierre-Simon Laplace of France independently concluded the possibility, although they proposed that the phenomenon would be the result of super-massive stars that created more gravity than their own light could escape (rather than collapsed stars, they pictured stars whose radius was 500x that of the sun yet with the same density.)

It wasn’t until Einstein came along that the foundations of Michell’s and Laplace’s theorizing were given a mathematical framework, and Karl Schwarzschild then used that math to calculate what would be forever known as the “event horizon” (technically called the “Schwarzschild radius”—give credit where it’s due!), the boundary of the black hole where nothing can escape.

There’s been a lot of progress since those early days of black hole theorizing. In the 1960s and 70s, astronomers were able to detect X-rays generated from matter as it super-heated from falling into some kind of invisible object in space. By the start of the new millennium, the Hubble Space Telescope had gathered sufficient data to provide evidence for existence of incredible large “supermassive” black holes at the enters of galaxies.

Finally, in 2015 the first direct detection of gravitational waves were made of two colliding black holes, and just six years ago in 2019 the Event Horizon Telescope captured the first “photo” of a black hole from a distant galaxy. I say “photo” because, obviously we can’t see the black hole itself. We see what’s called it’s “shadow” cast against its surroundings. The glowing ring surrounding the black hole, called the accretion disk, is a cloud of gas, dust, and plasma which orbits the black hole at speeds approaching the speed of light, heating the material and causing it to emit radiation detectable to modern astronomical instruments (like the Event Horizon Telescope).

Obviously, we have a lot more knowledge about black holes now than Michel and Laplace did 243 years ago, including photos and direct evidence of gravitational waves and everything. Yet even back then, they correctly calculated that such an object—even if invisible to optical instruments because it emitted no light—could still be detectable because they would have an effect on nearby visible bodies. In other words, even though you couldn’t see the black hole itself (or “dark star” as they called it), you could still know it was there because its gravitational force would affect the things around it.

I find this concept rather fascinating and a helpful bridge to think about things in our spiritual life. In James 2, the Lord’s brother is concerned that his readers have a real, genuine faith and that they aren’t self-deceived into believing their faith is real when it’s not. At the beginning of the chapter, he explained how the practice of partiality was incompatible with the Christian faith. Then in verse 14 he gets to the heart of the issue by talking about the relationship that exists between a person’s faith and a person’s actions.

You see, it’s easy to “say” that we have faith (v. 14), which is James’ way of talking about a person who claims to be a Christian. But what if there’s nothing to show for it? What if the walk doesn’t match the talk? Is that faith real? Does it do anything beneficial for the one who holds it? Can it even save him? If a fellow Christian is in desperate need and you have the means to help but you send them off with well-wishes but with nothing of actual use, is that an example of genuine faith? James argues that it’s not (vv. 15–17).

There are always objectors, and James knows this and so he poses what might be the ultimate objection to such thinking: “But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works” (v. 18a). In other words, we shouldn’t be so dogmatic about making some organic and necessary connection between faith and works. If we say we need works with our faith, we’re destroying salvation by faith alone. Someone can have faith and another person can have works, and each one is fine!

But listen to James’ response to this hypothetical “objector” and see if you can see the connection to the start of this post:

Objector: “One person has faith, and another has works.”
James: “Show me your faith without the works…”

In this one, very simple response, James uncovers an essential characteristic of faith that we all need to understand, and exposes this “objector’s” ignorance. The reality is this: faith by itself is not observable. It’s immaterial, and therefore it can’t be seen, it can’t been empirically tested and proven through mere claim. In other words, when James says, “Show me your faith without the works,” he’s challenging his “objector” to do what he knows is impossible: prove his faith is real just with faith.

You see, you can’t! Faith can be claimed, but it can’t validate itself. Now, someone might say, “But I have good theology! I believe all the right things! Doesn’t that prove that my faith is real?” That’s certainly the thinking of a lot of Christians, isn’t it? But James says not even that’s enough, because even the hell-bound demons believe what you believe. They know theology probably better than we do, and they even have a correct response to that theology as it relates to them—they shudder in terror and the judgment they inevitably face.

So while holding to orthodox theology can certainly be used to make sure someone doesn’t hold to the wrong faith (if you’re heterodox in your theology, that’s evidence of a lack of faith), the orthodoxy test fails to verify genuine faith. As I’ve heard John MacArthur say an several occasions, all an intellectual faith qualifies a person for is to be a demon!

So if orthodoxy isn’t a valid test for genuine, living, active faith, then what is? How do we “prove” that our faith claim is genuine if we can’t see it, feel it, taste it, touch it, smell it, or detect it with advanced astronomical instruments? We’ll have to do exactly what Michell did in the 18th century, and what James wrote in the 1st century: we have to demonstrate our faith is genuine by it’s effects. Or, in James own words:

Show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

In other words, our invisible faith is made visible as it manifests itself in a heart that’s been transformed and that then pours forth in holiness, love, good deeds, and every other expression of righteousness and “works” the NT writers speak about.

James isn’t the only one who addressed this issue. John clearly had this same understanding of genuine saving faith when he wrote:

• “If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not do the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.” (1 John 1:7–8)
• “The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, truly in him the love of God has been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.” (1 John 2:4–6)
• “The one who says he is in the Light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him. But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness blinded his eyes.” (1 John 2:9–11)
• “We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. The one who does not love abides in death.” (1 John 3:14)
• “But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.” (1 John 3:17–18)

And Paul, who is often pitted against James because of his focus on justification by faith apart from works (cf. Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8–9), had this to say in those very same books as it comes to how faith and works are supposed to interact:

• “Now to Him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the Gentiles, leading to obedience of faith.” (Rom. 16:25–26)¹
• “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.” (Gal. 5:6)
• For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. (Eph. 2:10).

So what’s the point? Simply this: that the Bible unequivocally presents good works as the outward manifestation of a heart that has been transformed by the gospel of Jesus Christ. For some, this truth should give us some pause and cause us to take some internal temperatures. Do we see evidence of our faith on the outside? Taking a spiritual self-examination is something every believer should do (cf. 2 Cor. 13:5).

For others, a passage like this is a healthy way to “to stimulate one another to love and good deeds” (Heb. 10:24), and reinvigorate our devotion which may have fallen into laxity. Not every spiritual assessment takes on the severity of a final exam. Sometimes the simple act of enlivening the mind and will to see what’s been overlooked or neglected is what the believer needs to continue in the faith and to pull himself by God’s grace out of the slump of the status quo of daily life.

Whichever scenario you fit under, the assessment is the same. What do I see in my life that evidences saving faith? Do I have a genuine love for God. Repentance from sin? Humility? Prayer? Love for others, particularly for fellow believers? A trajectory of spiritual growth? More and more separation from the world? Obedience to the Lord? All these are the fruit of genuine faith. These are the “effects” of truth saving faith. By themselves, they do not save. But when works are faith-generated, they become faith-validating. They become the “proof of life” that our faith isn’t a dead faith, but in fact a living and active faith.

1. In other words, Paul is speaking about a faith which produces obedience and submission to the Lordship of Christ. ↩︎