Thanksgiving Thoughts

Thanksgiving Day comes around every year on the fourth Thursday of November. For many Americans, it marks the official start of the holiday season. In 1863, during the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a national day of  “Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.” With the declaration, Thanksgiving Day became a federal holiday in America.

Most of us know the story of the “First Thanksgiving” with the Pilgrims. Their first feast lasted three days and it was a moment to thank God for the bounty after a particularly harsh winter in 1620-1621. God was at the very center of the First Thanksgiving. Central to the very notion of “thanksgiving” is the notion of God. Without God, there is no one to thank for your health, your family, or your capacities. You didn’t choose your parents. You didn’t choose to be born where you were born. And you most certainly didn’t choose your academic capacity. Those were all gifts from God. Essentially, what I’m trying to say is: Without God, Thanksgiving Day is completely meaningless.

At the center of godlessness is thanklessness. Conversely, when we know God through Jesus Christ, we naturally give Him thanks. Thanksgiving to God is instinctive to a believer. For you see, at a fundamental level, thanksgiving separates the believer from the unbeliever. The believer consistently aims to give thanks to God. The unbeliever, on the other hand, very rarely gives thanks to God.

Here’s what the Bible says:

“For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened” (Romans 1:21).

Giving thanks is a virtuous act, but it is also a deeply theological act. Without God, there would be no one to give thanks to. When Christians choose to give thanks to God during difficult times, they are declaring that God loves them and knows what is best for their lives. And strangely, by celebrating Thanksgiving Day, Christians and unbelievers are both implicitly declaring that God exists.

“Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever.” (Psalm 107:1)

Happy Thanksgiving Day 2016, everyone!

Posted in The Life, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

After-birth Abortion: An Evaluation and Critique

This post is my evaluation and critique of the following work:

Giubilini, Alberto and Francesca Minerva. “After-birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?” Journal of Medical Ethics, February 23, 2012.

Context and Purpose

          With Roe v. Wade nearly four decades old, the Journal of Medical Ethics, in February of 2012, decided to publish a controversial article entitled, “After-birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?” After more than thirty five years of legalized abortions, this article probably did not create the type of national stir that it should have. Furthermore, its arguments were not entirely novel. Men like Peter Singer from Princeton University, and Michael Tooley (who earned his PhD from Princeton) have made similar arguments in the past. Yet, because it did appear in the Journal of Medical Ethics, it was substantive in that, it gave us a look into the potential future of bioethics.

Both authors hail from Australia. Alberto Giubilini was with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva served at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. At the outset, the authors of the article established the fact that, “Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health.” Upon establishing the reality that abortions are legal in many Western nations, the authors then proposed the legalization of infanticide. The aim of their paper was to persuade the scientific community that infanticide ought to be legal on three primary grounds. First, the authors claim that, “Both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons.” Second, the authors believe that, “The fact that both [newborns and fetuses] are potential persons is morally irrelevant.” And third, the authors attempt to persuade readers that, “Adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people” and that, “What we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.” For all of the reasons why abortion is legal, the authors propose that infanticide ought to also be legalized.

Evaluation and Critique

          “Satanic, but logically consistent.” Although those words might not be the most suitable words for an academic paper, nevertheless, those are the words that continued to course through my mind during the reading of this paper. It was satanic because proposing the legalization of infanticide stems only from the mind of Satan, the ultimate murderer (Jn 8:44). Perhaps nothing could be more satanic than the murders of those that are most tender, young, and vulnerable within our society. Yet, as satanic as the proposal for infanticide is, the authors are sadly, highly logically consistent. Politicians and women who support abortion, but recoil with horror at the thought of killing a newborn, ought to carefully consider their own logical inconsistencies. A newborn child and a fetus within the mother’s womb are essentially of the same value in every way. As heinous as the proposal within this article is, it is nevertheless, logically consistent to allow for infanticide if the nation already permits abortion. My hope is that the authors of this article will awaken some into action against legalized abortion as they begin to see the harsh reality that abortion is really tantamount to infanticide.

Reasons for Abortion

          The authors begin their piece by giving us two frequently offered reasons for abortion: “Severe abnormalities of the fetus and risks for the physical and/or psychological health of the woman are often cited as valid reasons for abortion.” As a result of living in a culture that accepts those reasons as valid reasons for abortion, the authors begin by using those reasons as foundations for creating ethically strange situations where a newborn should be killed. Regarding the psychological health of the woman, the authors put forth a case where, “… a woman who loses her partner after she finds out that she is pregnant and therefore feels she will not be able to take care of the possible child by herself.” According to the authors (and the general public) unforeseen economic duress is a good reason for abortion. If this is indeed a valid reason for abortion, then the authors would argue that likewise, if a spouse unexpectedly dies shortly after childbirth, or perhaps even during childbirth, then the remaining spouse ought to have the right to kill the newborn. They would argue that being out of the womb is of no real substantive difference when considering the life of the child.

The authors also see that many women choose to have an abortion if severe abnormalities are detected in the fetus during their pregnancies. Many within our society do believe that the presence of such abnormalities is a justified reason for killing a child in the womb. Yet, the authors of this article push us to think further. They write, “A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have justified abortion become known after birth. In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human.” The authors conclude that the same arguments do apply to killing a newborn human. The authors give us various abortion-like scenarios that might justify the killing of a newborn; scenarios such as complications during childbirth, or undetected genetic disorders that escape prenatal screening. The authors write, “Perinatal asphyxia, for instance, may cause severe brain damage and result in severe mental and/or physical impairments comparable with those for which a woman could request an abortion. Moreover, abnormalities are not always, or cannot always be, diagnosed through prenatal screening even if they have a genetic origin.” Essentially, the authors make the case that the reasons given to validate abortions also exist for newborns. Therefore, they would argue that if the reasons are valid, then infanticide, like abortion, should also be legalized.

Logically, of course, the authors are consistent. If indeed, those are valid reasons for abortion, then they are also valid reasons for infanticide. A baby is a baby no matter where he is situated. However, underneath a biblical perspective, those two reasons are not valid reasons for murder. Human beings are made in the image of God, and Scripture does not give individuals the right to arbitrarily take the life of another human being. A handicap or a deformity should not cause a parent to eliminate her child. On the contrary, the genetic deformity or physical handicap requires greater love and care—not the elimination of the individual! We are not the ones to decide that life is not worth living if a person possesses a certain deformity. The fact is, we are all deformed—it is only a matter of degrees. Even the authors of the article reported that, “It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down’s syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’. But, in fact, people with Down’s syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.”

Furthermore, the psychological health of the woman is certainly not a valid reason for abortion (or infanticide). If this was ever to become a valid reason, then every teacher, pastor, or police officer would have the right to kill the very individuals they are called to serve. We are all (to some degree) a psychological drain on someone else—especially on those who care for us. It is, after all, part of being a fallen human. Yet, this interdependence calls for virtues such as patience and love. Murder should never be a valid coping strategy for stress caused by caring for someone. Finally, although rearing a child is stressful at times, the woman who opts to kill her child painfully ignores the fact that the joys of parenthood far outweigh its tolls.


          Very often, the devil is in the details. Words matter, and when it comes to ethical issues, words often matter heavily. On this heated issue, the authors argue that, “In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” Yet, the authors fail to realize that changing the term does not alter the sinfulness of the act. The authors keenly observe that the term “after-birth abortion” is indeed an oxymoron (killing someone outside the womb is not an abortion), yet for the sake of consumer palatability, they coin it as such.

What is truly sick in all this is the virtually “given” perspective that it is okay to kill a fetus. If we follow the natural flow of arguments, then, a fetus is not a child; a newborn is not a child; and soon, a child will no longer be a child. Why the fuddling with terminology? Evidently, because it is still wrong to kill a child. Biblically speaking however, a child is a child at conception (Ps 51:5). Yet, for a society that does not believe that a child in the womb is truly a child, the conclusion made by the authors of this article will soon begin making sense. It is only a matter time before, they too, like the authors of this article, will begin to say: “Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.” On that day, heads will simply nod along in agreement because of logical consistency that is based on a terribly flawed premise.


The crux of this entire paper resides in the argument that a fetus (and by extension, a newborn) is not a “person.” The authors of this article argue that, “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.” Throughout the article, the authors identify the newborn and fetus as “potential” persons, but not “actual” persons. The authors write, “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

This differentiation between “person” and “potential person” is key for their argumentation. Due to the fact that the authors do not view the newborn and fetus as having personhood, they therefore, believe that it is perfectly fine to kill them. In fact, they believe that there is no real “harm” inflicted upon newborns when they are killed by their mothers. The authors write, “The reason is that, by virtue of our definition of the concept of ‘harm’ in the previous section, in order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm.” In other words, the authors are arguing that actual harm is only something that could be inflicted on actual persons. However, the authors do not believe that the newborn nor the fetus is an actual person. Hence, they write, “If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all.”

What is tragic about this sort of argumentation is that it actually makes sense to some. Rather than cogent argumentation, this is merely the rationalization of sin. It is also as nonsensical as it is unscriptural. For the authors, animals are categorized as “persons” deserving the right to life, whereas infants and newborns are not. They write, “This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life.” The height of nonsense is found in that quote. When we begin differentiating between “human” and “person,” then we are certainly headed for imbecilic self-destruction as a society.

The Bible informs us that humans are “persons” at conception. Scripture states, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me” (Ps 51:5).[1] Thus, the sacred text reveals a harsh reality within a blessed truth. The blessed truth is that we are human “persons” at conception. The harsh reality is that we are, therefore, also sinners at conception. At conception, the child is truly a person, and because the child is a person, the psalmist reveals that God holds the him accountable for sin. All human persons are inherently sinners due to Adam’s sin. Scripture reveals that we are held accountable for this inherited sin at the moment of conception. This of course, is the doctrine of “original sin.” Although bioethicists may argue about when “personhood” actually begins for the human being, the Christian on the other hand, is clearly informed by Scripture that personhood begins at conception. Non-persons cannot sin. Authentic human persons, on the other hand, are sinners. The Bible informs us that we are sinners at the moment of conception. Therefore, we can safely conclude that the freshly conceived child is indeed a “person.” The child in the womb is a sinful person, but nevertheless, he is a real person. In fact, he is a sinful person because he is a real person. The apostle Paul put it this way in Romans 5:12: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.”


          Although the authors of this article attempt to make a distinction between terms such as “human” and “person,” the Bible incontrovertibly states that all humans are made in the image of God (Gen 1:27), and therefore, all humans are inherently valuable. Thus, all humans have the right to life. This is not a right given to humanity by the United States Constitution, but rather, the right comes from Almighty God Himself. “Personhood” and life begins at conception and therefore, both abortion and infanticide are sins against God. More specifically, they are the sins of murder. The terms we use make a difference. There is no such thing as “after-birth abortion.” Instead, it is really the murder of an infant child. There is no such thing as “the abortion of a fetus.” Instead, it is really the murder of a child within the womb. Both the fetus and the newborn are children made in the image of God and are therefore, no one but God has the right to take their lives.

[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quotations of Scripture are from the New American Standard Bible.

Posted in Theology | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment


Nearly two-thirds of children born in the United States are born to mothers under the age of thirty. Which is why the following discovery in a 2012 New York Times article was so alarming: “It used to be called illegitimacy. Now it is the new normal. After steadily rising for five decades, the share of children born to unmarried women has crossed a threshold: more than half of births to American women under 30 occur outside marriage” (Jason DeParle and Sabrina Tavernise, For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage, New York Times, February 17, 2012). Evidently, premarital sex is pervasive in this nation.

What is premarital sex?

At first, we might merely dismiss the question posed in this article as if it’s too rudimentary for us. Convention is to simply understand meaning through the confluence of the words “premarital” and “sex.” With regard to the confluence of words, I admit, the definition is very straightforward: Premarital sex is sexual intercourse that occurs before marriage. Yet, there is a more profound question circulating within the minds of many.

In June of this year, someone read my article on the adultery exception for divorce and remarriage and left the following comment.

Thanks for the article. Question:

What is your definition of marriage? Some say the Jewish context did not differentiate between sexual joining and marriage.

Suffice it to say, the question deserves an answer. There are some pastors who believe that having sex with someone means that (in God’s eyes) you’re now married to the person. The primary Scripture texts for this position are 1 Corinthians 6 and Matthew 19:

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” (1 Cor 6:15-16)

“‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Mt 19:5-6)

Those who support the “sex is marriage” position may have the following logic which stems from those two verses:

  • Paul says that having sex with a prostitute is tantamount to “becoming one flesh with her.”
  • Jesus said that in marriage, “two shall become one flesh.”
  • Therefore, having premarital sex with someone means that you’re now married to the person before God.

Seems cogent, doesn’t it?

I think I even recall a young man (or woman) writing to me that he was convinced that he couldn’t get married because he had engaged in premarital sex with a female (who is now long gone) and therefore, he was still technically married to her. In his view, a marriage now would really be remarriage–making him an adulterer/bigamist (Romans 7:3) bound for hell. Talk about fear and anxiety!


Premarital sex is sexual sin that must cease and be repented of. However, it is not marriage. The two are not the same. Here are five reasons why.

1. In John 4:18, Jesus tells the woman at the well, “For you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.” Prior to the banning of remarriage by Christ (Mt 5:32), divorce and remarriage was allowed by God and quite rampant within the Jewish community (Deut 24:1-4). Apparently, this woman (who was a Samaritan) was divorced five times and had remarried four times. According to Christ, the man that she was currently cohabitating with was not her husband. Meaning, she never married him–she was simply having sex with him. Hence, Jesus does not equate sex with marriage.

2. It is true that in the Old Testament, if you had sex with a virgin, you had to marry her (the principle is still advisable today). However, it is important to note that the premarital sex itself was never equated to marriage. In other words, the premarital sex meant that the man now had to get married to her–it did not mean that he was now married to her. This is especially evident in the fact that the woman’s father could actually refuse the wedding–even after premarital sex: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins” (Ex 22:16-17). Hence, in such cases, premarital sex occurred, a fine (the price of a dowry) occurred, but a marriage did not occur. The father refused and didn’t let it happen.

3. In Genesis 34:2, Shechem the Hivite prince, rapes Dinah the daughter of Jacob. Yet, the sex did was not equated to marriage because after the sexual intercourse, verse three states: “So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, ‘Get me this young girl for a wife'” (Gen 34:3). In other words, “Yes, I’ve had sex with her, but she’s not my wife right now. Arrange things so that she could become my wife.”

4. King David had adulterous sex with Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba. Yet, the sex with King David did not mean that she was now married to him. In Jewish law, a woman is not allowed to have two husbands (Rom 7:3). Additionally, David’s sex with Bathsheba did not break the marital bond that she had with Uriah. This is particularly evident in 2 Samuel 11:26, where the biblical narrator still identifies Bathsheba as the “wife of Uriah” and refers to him as “her husband”: “When the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband” (2 Sam 11:26). Finally, it is important to note that only after Uriah’s death, did David marry her and she therefore, “became” his wife: “And when her mourning was over, David sent and brought her to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord” (2 Sam 11:27, emphasis added).

5. Jesus did not have a human father, but was nevertheless, “The Son of David” because of Joseph. Prior to Christ’s birth, Joseph had consternation about marrying the pregnant Mary. Yet, after an angel instructed him to marry her, here’s what the text says: “And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus” (Mt 1:24-25, emphasis added). When Christ was born, Joseph was already truly married to Mary but he had never engaged in sexual intercourse with Mary. Of course, Joseph and Mary did eventually consummate the marriage after the birth of Christ; but nevertheless, Scripture is clear: For some time, Mary maintained her virginity while truly being the wife of Joseph. Again, sex (or the lack thereof) does not equate to marriage.


While I could bring up other biblical texts, I will instead close with one final appeal. The appeal to logical reasoning.

If sex is marriage, then the act of premarital sex weds a man and a woman. If sex is marriage, then sex with a prostitute weds a man to the prostitute. It also means that at the moment of adulterous sex, the cheating husband is now married to his mistress.

If premarital sex is marriage, then think about the three possibilities:

  1. It means that every woman who had premarital sex in high school or college, and then subsequently married another man, is now really married to two men and is guilty of polyandry.
  2. Or, if polyandry is not permissible, then the “second” marriage is merely adultery and the children of that marriage are to be considered mamzerim (bastards, illegitimate). In this case, the woman is still really “married” to the person she had premarital sex with.
  3. Or, if premarital sex is marriage, and subsequent sex breaks any prior marriages, then the woman’s current marriage (to a different sexual partner) would technically be a remarriage. If we then accept the unbiblical view that remarriages are indeed real marriages that must never be terminated (e.g., see John Piper’s view), then what we may have is a woman who is legitimately “married” to the father of her children. But this possibility is problematic for two reasons. First of all, the option that Hosea took with adulterous Gomer would go out the window. In this view, no one could ever forgive an adulterous spouse because the adulterous sex would automatically dissolve the marriage. In this view, at the moment of sex, the adulterer would cease from being the husband of his first wife and would immediately become the husband of his mistress or prostitute. This, of course, is simply not true. Even in cases of adultery, Christians advise the spouse to forgive and maintain the marriage. The marriage is not automatically dissolved by extramarital sex. Although adultery did hurt the marriage, nevertheless, the marriage is still in full force. Second, the view is problematic because Jesus identifies remarriage as adultery (Mt 5:32, Mt 19:9, Mk 10:11-12, and Lk 16:18). Hence, unlike what John Piper teaches, Jesus (and John the Baptist) expects remarriages to be terminated so that persons no longer remain as adulterers.

Therefore, in light of Scripture and logical reasoning, premarital sex is a heinous sin against God that is more grievous than most other sins which are committed outside the body (1 Cor 6:18). However, it is not the same as marriage and more importantly, it is a sin that could be repented of and thoroughly forgiven through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Marriage certainly incorporates sex, but it is not the same as sex. In fact, it is marriage that validates the sex that occurs after the marriage. It is the marriage covenant that makes the union indissoluble (otherwise, union with a prostitute would also be indissoluble). In a marriage, the covenant precedes the carnal union, and indeed, it must: The woman becomes the man’s wife before he is joined to her physically. For the Christian, sex is to be enjoyed only within the bounds of holy matrimony: “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Heb 13:4).

Posted in Theology | Tagged , , | 1 Comment


Every story has a worldview, and apparently, so does every toy aisle. The makers at Boy Story are now attempting to “do away with stereotypes” by creating dolls for boys. The push for “gender neutral” toys is now on. Boy Story writes on their website: “Boy Story Introduces boy Action Dolls to the market to teach boys and girls alike that anyone can play with dolls.”

“Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong” (1 Cor 16:13).

There is a profound shortage of “real men” in our nation. When I read verses like the one above, I can’t help but feel the very high expectations that God specifically has for Christian boys.

1 Corinthians 6:13 couldn’t be addressed to women for it would be wrong for women to “act like men.” Surely, the Bible was written for both men and women, and the souls of men and women have equal salvific value in the sight of God (Gal 3:28). However, a person cannot deny the fact that in virtually every Pauline epistle, the apostle is specifically writing to and addressing the “brothers” of the church (e.g., Rom 1:13, 1 Cor 1:10, 2 Cor 1: 8, Gal 6:1, Eph 6:23, etc.). Furthermore, verses like the one above heavily testify to the fact that when Paul wrote the word brothers, he was specifically referring to the men of the church.

Why is this significant? It’s significant because despite what our egalitarian culture/society tries to tell us, there is an objective perspective to the gender narrative and it goes something like this:

“For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man” (1 Cor 11:7).

Satan is well aware of this truth and that is why he is working so hard to demote our men. Why? Because the glory of God is at stake. Apparently, nothing reminds him more of his archenemy than the human male–the one who bears the image and glory of God. Hence, the pervasive nature of emasculation within our society, within our churches, and within our family units. Don’t believe me?

“My people—infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths.” (Isaiah 3:12)

We, as a nation, stand at the precipice of the nation’s first female president. Hanna Rosin, in her 2010 book, The End of Men (and in subsequent articles), has argued for the obsolescence of men. She says that the minimization of men playing “major roles” within society is a good thing.

While I disagree, the data she cites is alarming. Consider these realities:

-In the U.S., 1/5th of able-bodied men are not working.
-In the West, including the U.S., roughly 60% of college graduates are women. Women also earn 60% of all master’s degrees.
-Educationally, boys lag behind girls essentially from the crib onward.
-In 2009, the U.S. workforce became majority women.
-Of the 15 job categories marked for growth in the decade ahead, men will dominate only two: janitorial work and computer engineering.

Wow. My goodness.


1. Pray. If you have sons, pray for them. Pray for them in the womb. Pray for them in the crib. Pray for them before you drop them off at school. Pray, pray, pray! You cannot ensure your son’s masculinity–but God can! Remember the prayer of Hannah in 1 Samuel 2? A praying parent makes a huge difference in the lives of boys!

2. Ensure Scripture Reading. “I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you” (Ps 119:11). The best way for a young man to become a man of character and integrity is by storing up God’s Word. God’s Word is sharper than any two-edged sword. God is the ultimate Father and His words are the best to follow if a young man is to become a “man.”

3. Expose Him to Powerful Preaching. “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom 10:17). Powerful preaching creates powerful men. Weak preaching creates weak men. God spoke the universe into existence. There is power in the preached Word of God. And please, don’t even think about going to a church with a female pastor–it’s actually prohibited by God (1 Tim 2:12).

4. Surround Him With Godly Men. “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1). Kids naturally imitate (which is why boys usually want to grow up and do exactly the same jobs as their dads). Hence, it’s important that we surround them with good models. Dads, of course, are the best examples for boys. Fathers therefore, ought to strive to be godly men. If you don’t have a father at home, then encourage some of the godly men at church to be involved in your son’s life. Most men would love to mentor! Additionally give him biographies of Christian men who gave their all for Christ.

5. Stress the Importance of Education. “The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding.” (Prov 4:7). The first and greatest commandment informs us that God expects us to love Him with “all our minds.” If unbelievers have reasons to study, we have the ultimate! Encourage boys to study hard. Evolution, naturalism, and secular humanism are all atheistic “superstructures” that require engagement from the most potent Christian minds. Contrary to being “anti-intellectualism,” Christianity has always been the cause of intellectual progress. Oxford and Cambridge were started by Christians. In the United States, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton were all started by Christians. (In fact, Princeton’s crest still reads, “Dei sub numine viget,” which is Latin for “Under God she flourishes.”)

Without an education, boys will never lead. God gave them talents and a mind, and He expects a return on investment!

6. Teach Him to Respect Authority. “Give to everyone what you owe them: if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor” (Rom 13:7). There is one common theme among fatherless boys: the inability to respect authority. Sadly, though they see it as a mark of brash independence, it is nothing more than the means to their own destruction. Boys who grow up in settings where older males do not respect their parents, teachers, bosses, police officers, pastors, and other authority figures rarely do well in life. Teach your son to respect authority. Why? Because authority flows out of authority.

I have 2 girls and 2 boys of my own. No question, my girls are precious–both in my eyes and in God’s! But make no mistake about this: God has a very unique role for each of my boys–a role that my girls were never intended by God to fulfill. God knows this, but so does Satan.

But boys don’t simply “become” men. They need fathers, mentors, pastors, and guides. They need examples–someone to imitate. Ultimately, they need God–the quintessential Father; and Christ–the quintessential man. As Christian men, we must therefore, do all that is in our power to develop our boys into men. The “glory” of our country, our schools, our churches, and our families depend on it!

This post was originally posted on:

Posted in Marriage & Family | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Remarriage is Adultery


Photo of Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, Kregel Publications, 1970; p.25.

By Dr. Stephen Kim

The aim of this paper is to biblically present, in a cogent manner, that:

  1. Remarriage, subsequent to a divorce that was not due to spousal sexual immorality, is adultery.
  2. Remarriage, subsequent to a divorce that was not due to spousal sexual immorality, continues to render the parties within the remarriage as adulterers for as long as the remarriage exists.
  3. Remarriage, subsequent to a divorce that was not due to spousal sexual immorality, must be dissolved.
  4. A return back to the person’s first marriage, after the dissolution of the remarriage, is not sin.

Note: Remarriage after the death of the spouse is not adultery; and is instead, a legitimate marriage (cf. Rom 7:3, 1 Cor 7:39). The term “remarriage” henceforth will be used to describe those remarriages that are subsequent to a divorce that was not due to spousal sexual immorality.

I plan to write this paper in a manner that is suitable for a lay person. It is not my goal to be exhaustive about the topic of divorce and remarriage for that would necessitate a fairly large book. Seeing that Jesus addressed this issue at least four times in three different Gospels, it is plain to me that he wanted all humans to understand and obey. It is this author’s understanding that both the institution of marriage and the laws governing it are divine gifts that are not amendable by mankind. Marriage, as a definition, is both universal in its scope and definitive in its allowances. Therefore, irrespective of a person’s personal religious background, marriage is only a marriage if it fits the parameters given by the Bible. There is only one true God. Hence, marriages officiated by civil government are only true marriages if they align to Holy Scripture. Gay marriages and adultery will never be true marriages for they contravene Holy Scripture. God’s law is higher than man’s law.

1. Remarriage, subsequent to a divorce that was not due to spousal sexual immorality, is adultery.

The title of this article actually comes directly from the mouth of Jesus Christ. In every single one of the Synoptic Gospels (Mt 5:32, Mt 19:9, Mk 10:11, and Lk 16:18) there is at least one account of Jesus directly instructing humanity that remarriage is adultery (note: Matthew’s Gospel has two accounts). The repetition of the commandment throughout New Testament writings, and the lucidity of the prohibition both serve as clear indications that the Lord expected people to never enter into remarriages after His declaration. Mark records Jesus saying, “And he said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery (Gk. μοιχᾶται) against her'”(Mk 10:11).

Hence, a direct and concise abbreviation of Jesus’ teaching is simply my title: Remarriage is adultery.

1.1. The word “adultery,” by its very definition, is an invalid relationship that must be immediately terminated. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Ex 20:14). Adultery is a term used to describe an unlawful union. Adultery is sin. Hence, when Jesus identified remarriage as adultery, it was His way of explicitly saying, “Break it up! This union is invalid and abominable in my sight, therefore, terminate it immediately! This is not a marriage. She is another man’s wife and it is unlawful for you to have (i.e., remain married to) your neighbor’s wife.”

Popular Christian website,, tries to legitimatize remarriages by stating: “In the Old Testament Law, the punishment for adultery was death (Leviticus 20:10). At the same time, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 mentions remarriage after a divorce, does not call it adultery, and does not demand the death penalty for the remarried spouse. The Bible explicitly says that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), but nowhere explicitly states that God hates remarriage. The Bible nowhere commands a remarried couple to divorce.”

Of course, in that quote, they fail to mention that although divorce and remarriage were allowed by God in the Old Testament (cf. Deut 24:1-4; which is why, in John 4:18, Jesus told the Samaritan woman at the well that she legitimately had five husbands in the past); they were subsequently banned by Jesus in the New Testament. There are three major problems with their argumentation: 1. Although the Old Testament does not identify remarriage as adultery; the New Testament, however, does identify it as adultery; 2. God never states that he hates remarriage, but he does state that he hates adultery (which is what a remarriage is in the New Testament era); and 3. A remarried couple is not told to divorce in the Old Testament; but in the New Testament, remarriage is identified as adultery, and adultery–as we all know–must end.

1.2. The word “adultery,” by its very definition, means: The sexual union of a married person with one who is not his or her spouse. Hence, when Jesus identifies remarriage as adultery, he is unequivocally declaring two things: 1. that the first marriage union is still valid (divorce did not terminate it), and 2. that the second marriage union is invalid. It is universally accepted that the word “adultery” encompasses both declarations.

1.3. All professing Christians agree that remarriage is adultery. Although they might disagree about whether or not to breakup the remarriage, yet all universally agree (because of the lucidity of Jesus’ words) that to remarry is to commit adultery. For example, although John Piper incorrectly instructs his congregation to stay in remarriages rather than dissolve them; he nevertheless, in his position paper, starts everything off in point 1.1 by correctly stating, “This verse [referring to Luke 16:18] shows that Jesus does not recognize divorce as terminating a marriage in God’s sight. The reason a second marriage is called adultery is because the first one is considered to still be valid.” Yes, Piper is correct there: Even after a court-ruled divorce, the first marriage is still valid in the eyes of God, and this is the reason why a remarriage is identified as adultery by Christ.

1.4. If the first marriage is still valid (by calling a remarriage “adultery,” Jesus taught that the first marriage is valid: see 1.3 above), and if men like John Piper call for individuals to remain in remarriages because those are also valid, then there now exits two valid marriages. (The first marriage, because God bonded the couple together (Mt 19:6), will always remain valid–even after a divorce [except for divorces due to spousal sexual infidelity].) Therefore, those who instruct individuals to remain in remarriages are proponents of polygamy.

Thankfully, Jesus invalidated remarriages by identifying them as “adultery” and by doing so, he also banned polygamy. The Christian who does not call for the dissolution of remarriages has no biblical ground for prohibiting polygamy. Prior to Christ’s prohibition of remarriages in the New Testament, God allowed both remarriage (Deut 24:1-4) and polygamy (Deut 21:15, 2 Sam 12:8, 2 Sam 12:24) in the Old Testament. In fact, some of the most godliest men in the Old Testament were polygamists. In the Christian era, polygamy is a sin because Jesus made remarriage a sin. The two are inextricable.

[Note: Earlier, I mentioned that Christian website,, instructs individuals to remain in remarriages. Logically and consistently, they also believe that polygamy is still permissible in the New Testament era. On their website, they write: “How does God view polygamy today? Even while allowing polygamy, the Bible presents monogamy as the plan which conforms most closely to God’s ideal for marriage.”]

Let me be clear: Without calling for the dissolution of remarriages, Christians have no biblical basis for banning polygamy.

1.5. The main idea of Matthew’s text. The entire point of Matthew’s account in the 19th chapter of his gospel is this: “Therefore, what God has joined together, man must not [Gk. imperative/active/present tense] separate” (Mt 19:6). Jesus is teaching the earthly permanence of marriage. In other words, because God has joined the first marriage together, therefore no human court’s divorce decree is effective in breaking it up. As explained earlier, the reason why Jesus calls remarriage adultery is because the person is still effectively married to the first spouse.

Someone once tried to tell me that the main idea in Matthew 19 was that Jesus was trying to correct the incorrect belief held by Pharisees in Matthew 19:7 that divorce was a command from Moses. In this person’s view, the entire point of this passage was that Jesus  was trying to teach that Moses didn’t command divorce, but instead, Moses allowed it (Mt 19:8). This could not be any further from the truth! Such a view might have been derived from the work of A. Philip Brown II, who wrote:

Two considerations argue that this interpretation is incorrect. First, Jesus asserted that Moses permitted divorce, implicitly contradicting the Pharisees’ claim that Moses commanded divorce (Matt. 19:7‐8). Therefore, this clause should not be read as a command. Second, the syntax of the clause most naturally reads either as a statement of permission (“then he may write her a bill of divorcement) or as a continued description of the case as in the NASB (“and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her away …”).

For a purported student of the Bible, Brown’s work is immensely careless. First of all, the main idea of the Matthean text is clearly the insolubility of something God Almighty has put together. Secondly and importantly, in Mark’s Gospel, the words are actually from reverse sources! In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus calls it a Mosaic command (Mk 10:5), and the Pharisees call it a Mosaic allowance (Mk 10:4)! My point (and evidently, Mark’s point) is simple: An allowance by God is a command by God. Let us not strain at a gnat! Let’s not try to see what’s really not there! The main idea of the text is unquestionably this: “What God has joined together, stays together forever.”

[Interestingly and additionally, in Mark’s account, Jesus ends his discussion with the Pharisees at, “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Mk. 10:9). Christ later gives the insight into that command (i.e., his teaching on divorce and remarriage) only privately, to his disciples, in a house (Mk 10:10). This is all proof that Jesus’ main point was to teach the fact that the first marriage is permanently valid in God’s sight for God was the One who put it together.]

1.6. Conclusions: Remarriage is adultery. Jesus clearly said that it was. Hence, remarriages are not real marriages. By its very definition, the word “adultery” is a reference to an unlawful union. Adultery is a sin that must be broken. By stating that a remarriage is “adultery,” Jesus is stating that the first marriage is still valid, and that the second marriage is invalid. Therefore, just like cases of bigamy, there is no real second marriage in existence. The allowance for couples to stay in remarriages logically leads to the allowance of polygamy. The only way to rationally accept remarriages as legitimate marriages is by saying that Jesus was wrong in stating that remarriage is adultery. However, if Jesus was wrong about remarriages, then one would also have to permit polygamy.

2. Remarriage, subsequent to a divorce that was not due to spousal sexual immorality, continues to render the parties within the remarriage as adulterers for as long as the remarriage exists.

2.1. Romans 7:3 states, “So then if, while her husband lives, she is married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband dies, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she is married to another man.” Therefore, no matter how “sorry” a person is for being in a remarriage, as long as she remains remarried, she also remains an adulteress. God’s Word is clear.

2.2. One source tried contradict Romans 7:3 by stating, “Rather the establishment of a second marriage covenant (not sexual union in the second marriage) breaks the first marriage covenant which is why Jesus calls it adultery. Thus sexual union within a second marriage is not adulterous.” Unsuspecting readers are fooled by this quick explanation and fail to pick up a key error made by A. Philip Brown II.

As opposed to Brown’s teaching however, the correct teaching is: The establishment of a second marriage covenant does not break the first marriage covenant which is why Jesus calls it adultery (see 1.3 above). Thus, any sexual union within a second marriage will always be adulterous.

Brown seems to have forgotten that adultery is a sin that always involves someone who is married. Jesus calls the remarriage “adultery” because in his eyes, the first marriage covenant is still valid. Otherwise, the usage of the word “adultery” would not make any sense! The forming of a new covenant is called adultery by Christ because the first covenant is unbroken and the second covenant is unlawful and invalid. As John Piper correctly observed above, the categorization of a remarriage as “adultery” can only take place if God still views the first marriage covenant as unbroken and in full effect. It is for this reason that any sexual union in a remarriage is always adulterous.

2.3. The apostle Paul certainly saw a divorced woman as still having a husband. In echoing Jesus’ command, the apostle Paul commands the Corinthians saying, “To the married I give this command–not I, but the Lord–a wife should not divorce a husband (but if she does, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband), and a husband should not divorce his wife” (1 Cor 7:10-11). Question: “How could a woman simultaneously be ‘unmarried’ and yet, have a ‘husband’ to reconcile to?” Answer: Although she was divorced in the sight of man (i.e., legal divorce); yet in God’s eyes, the first marriage covenant is still valid and therefore, she still has a husband with whom she could reconcile with. Question: “Why does Paul command the woman not to marry anyone else after the divorce? Doesn’t divorce terminate a marriage covenant?” Answer: Because Jesus stated that remarriage is adultery; and thus, a remarriage would be adultery. Jesus declared that divorce does not break the first marriage covenant.

2.4. Many try to make a big deal about the tense of the verbs in Jesus’ command. Here is one such example by A. Philip Brown II:

Some have claimed that remarriage constitutes on‐going adultery. In support of this position, it may be noted that there are three present tense verbs/verbals in Matthew 5:32: “divorces” (ἀπολύων), “makes” in “makes her commit adultery” (ποιεῖ), and “commits adultery” (μοιχᾶται).   It is true that the Greek present tense often indicates on‐going action. It is not true, however, that the present tense always indicates on‐going action. Both lexical and contextual factors in Matthew 5:32 indicate that the present tense was used in order to make a statement that is timeless and universally true, and that it was not used to indicate that the actions involved were ongoing.

My rebuttal is quite simple: Verb tense does not matter. Rather, the key question ought to be, “Is it a valid marriage covenant?”

By identifying remarriage as adultery, Jesus was stating that the first marriage is still valid and that the second marriage is unlawful. Thus, any sexual union in the remarriage is always adulterous. The validity of the covenant is what determines the lawfulness of the sex within any union. Opponents usually argue that the remarriage covenant itself (i.e., the “act of remarriage”) is the “one time act of adultery.” If that is true, then they have conceded that the covenant itself is not valid; and as a result, any sexual intercourse that ensues within the remarriage is adulterous.

2.5. Conclusions: As long as a person remains remarried, the Bible identifies the person as an adulterer. According to Romans 7:3, one’s remarried status is what determines the subsequent adulterer status. Since Jesus identified the second marriage as adultery, the second covenant is an invalid one and thus, all sexual intercourse within the remarriage will always be adulterous. Because the act of “marrying another” is what is deemed as unlawful, the remarriage is essentially not a true marriage covenant. Therefore, every sexual encounter within a remarriage is adulterous. Instead of trying redefine the word “adultery,” Christians ought to simply obey the Word of God. Remarriage is adultery because Jesus said that it was.

3. Remarriage, subsequent to a divorce that was not due to spousal sexual immorality, must be dissolved.

3.1. By identifying remarriage as adultery, Jesus made his expectation clear: Terminate the remarriage. Stop the adultery.

3.2. Romans 7:3 states, “So then if, while her husband lives, she is married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband dies, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she is married to another man.”

According to Scripture, a person is an adulteress if she marries another man while her first marital covenant is still valid. By identifying remarriages as adultery, Jesus was declaring that the first marital covenant is still valid. Hence, the remarried woman is married to another man while her husband lives–as per Romans 7:3. Evidently, according to Romans 7:3, the only way to no longer be identified as an adulteress is to no longer be married to the second husband. In other words, the remarriage must be dissolved. As the Word states, she is to be called an adulteress as long as she is married to another man while her husband is alive.

3.3. Herod was commanded by John the Baptist to break up his unlawful marriage to Herodias. The biblical text states that Herod was indeed married (in the eyes of the world) to Herodias (Mk 6:17), and yet because the marriage was unlawful, John kept telling Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have [notice the present tense] your brother’s wife.” (Mk 6:18). In other words, “Terminate the marriage!” At the very least, this biblical account informs us that such a thing as an invalid marriage does exist. You can be “married” and yet not really be. In other words, your “marriage” is nothing but a mirage in the sight of God. Divorce of the remarriage, in cases of repentance, is a necessary legal procedure; but in God’s eyes, there really wasn’t even a real “marriage” to terminate. An annulment would have been fine. Yet, proper repentance of adultery must involve the dissolution of the remarriage. If two gay men should not remain in a gay marriage after conversion, neither should two adulterers be told to remain in a remarriage.

Some try to claim that the reason why Herod’s marriage to Herodias was unlawful because she was his brother’s ex-wife. But where in the Bible is it forbidden to marry your brother’s ex-wife? These individuals claim that the marriage was unlawful because it was a violation of Leviticus 18:16. Leviticus 16:18 states, “You must not have sexual intercourse with your brother’s wife; she is your brother’s nakedness.” That’s literally what it states. Personally, I do not see marriage in the Leviticus text. All that is seen is the prohibition of a man committing adultery with his brother’s wife. In fact, in a similar set-up, the prior verse commands the reader: “You must not have sexual intercourse with your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife. You must not have intercourse with her” (Lv 18:15). It is absurd to say that Leviticus 18:15 has marriage to a daughter-in-law in view. The Jews would have never allowed a person to marry his own daughter-in-law. Also, the text explicitly states that the woman is currently the wife of the man’s son. In other words, she was not free to be remarried to anyone. The woman was still married to the son (she was not married to the father-in-law).

Likewise, I do not believe that the very next verse, Leviticus 18:16, has anything to do with a prohibition against marrying a brother’s ex-wife. I believe that it is simply prohibiting having sexual intercourse with your brother’s wife. In other words, Leviticus 18:16 is the prohibition of adultery. Finally, one must remember that if a brother died (and thus, the marriage covenant was truly broken), the living brother was actually commanded by God to marry the widow of the deceased brother (Deut 25:5) in a levirate marriage. Hence, marriage to a brother’s ex-wife, in and of itself, was not a sin.

But even if Leviticus 18:16 is really prohibiting a man from marrying his brother’s ex-wife, that still doesn’t change the prescription within the Marcan text. If the Mosaic command really  prohibits one from marrying a brother’s ex-wife, and a person did it anyway; then John’s prescription was quite simple and straight-forward: “Break it up! Analogous to gay marriage, any marriage in line with a prohibition from Leviticus 18 is forbidden.” Therefore, since God also prohibits adultery (which is what remarriage is identified as by Christ), then John would tell you to break up your remarriage because having your neighbor’s wife is also not a lawful marriage.

I, however, stand by the belief that divorce and remarriage (and not consanguinity) was the issue with John the Baptist for a number of reasons. First, John the Baptist positively identifies the woman as “your brother’s wife” (Mk 6:18). The text indicates that in John’s mind, Herodias still actually belonged to Herod’s brother. The problem, the inspired narrator clearly tells us, is that Herod “had married her” (Mk 6:17). Second, in Jewish law, women were prohibited from initiating a divorce (Rom 7:3). Third, as a result, even though a marriage had occurred between Herod and Herodias, John the Baptist still calls the whole thing “unlawful” (Mk 6:18) and informs Herod that it is sin for him to remain married to her. Finally, we have the text of Josephus which actually informs us explicitly of what the sin was:

Antiquities 18.5.3 136, (bold emphasis added):

Herodias was married to Herod, the son of Herod the Great by Mariamme the daughter of Simon the high priest. They had a daughter Salome, after whose birth Herodias, taking it into her head to flout the way of our fathers, married Herod the Tetrarch, her husband’s brother by the same father, who was tetrarch of Galilee; to do this she parted from a living husband. 

[Notice that Josephus cites departure from a “living husband” (and not consanguinity) as the reason for the unlawful nature of Herodias’ second marriage. This, therefore, is a classic case study on divorce and remarriage.]

The text is at least clear on this point: John the Baptist’s prescription for a man who is in an unlawful marriage is to terminate it. Even if it is granted that consanguinity is the sin, the prescription is nevertheless, the same: if you cannot stay married to your brother’s ex-wife; then likewise, you cannot stay married to your neighbor’s wife. It is beyond preposterous to argue against consanguinity, but argue for adultery. Finally, it is also apparent that John had been continuously–for the duration of Herod’s remarriage–calling for a breakup of Herod’s remarriage. John did not say strange things like, “Remarriage is a one-time act of adultery, but it nevertheless, becomes a real and binding marriage after repentance.”  No. Instead, John kept saying that it was unlawful to remain in the marriage–over and over again: “For John had been saying to Herod, ‘It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife'” (Mk 6:18). For John, repentance was shown through a break-up.

3.4. Jesus said that remarriage is adultery. Perhaps this is the most plain and obvious point, but it is worth reiterating. In stating that whoever “marries another commits adultery,” Jesus unambiguously informed us that the marriage covenant itself is null and void. Essentially, here’s the equation: Remarriage = Adultery. Therefore, as long as a remarriage exists, adultery exists. In mathematics, we can work backwards: Termination of adultery = Termination of remarriage.

3.5. Conclusions: By identifying remarriage as adultery, Jesus made his expectation clear: Terminate the remarriage. Stop the adultery. Romans 7:3 states that a person is an adulterer as long as a person is married to another person while the first spouse is alive. John the Baptist commanded Herod to break up his unlawful marriage. For the remarried person, in order to terminate adultery, he must terminate the remarriage.

4. A return back to the person’s first marriage, after the dissolution of the remarriage, is not sin.

4.1. Since remarriage is adultery, adultery can be repented of and the spouse can return back to his/her spouse after the termination of the remarriage. The apostle Paul states that the divorcee can reconcile to his/her first spouse after a divorce: “To the married I give this command–not I, but the Lord–a wife should not divorce a husband (but if she does, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband), and a husband should not divorce his wife” (1 Cor 7:10-11).

4.2. Opponents often use Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as a prohibition against returning to the first spouse after the dissolution of a remarriage. For example, in an article by John MacArthur’s Grace To You, author Phil Johnson argues:

As a matter of fact, in the same passage where Moses permitted husbands to issue a certificate of divorce, the law added this restriction: “When she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD” (Deuteronomy 24:2-4, emphasis added).

One verse takes down Johnson’s entire errant argument from Deuteronomy 24. Deuteronomy 24:2 is the verse that tears everything down because it plainly states: “And if she goes and becomes another man’s wife.” The Scripture text is clear: It is an abomination to return to your first spouse if you truly became the spouse of someone else. However, after Jesus declared remarriages to be adultery, the remarried woman never “becomes another man’s wife.” Because of Jesus’ declaration, the first marriage is still valid; and the second marriage is merely the sin of adultery. Therefore, the woman is really still the wife of her first husband. Hence, after terminating the remarriage, she can repent of her adultery (i.e., remarriage) and return to her husband (1 Cor 7:11). Again, according to Jesus, she never truly became another man’s wife and therefore, it is completely acceptable for her to return to her husband after the dissolution of her remarriage (i.e., adultery).

[Note: Jeremiah 3:1 corroborates the fact that the actual “becoming another man’s wife” is the reason for the Deuteronomic prohibition: “If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man’s wife, will he return to her? Would not that land be greatly polluted? (Jer 3:1, emphasis added).]

4.3. God commanded Abimelech to give Abraham’s wife back to Abraham or else Abimelech was “a dead man” (Gen  20:3). In the Gospel of Luke, we are told that, “he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery” (Lk 16:18). Here is the reason why: Since God put a man and woman permanently together through marriage, a divorce does not break their marriage bond. Therefore, it is adultery to marry a divorced woman because the divorced woman is really still the wife of another man. Now, what is the biblical protocol for a man once he discovers that he has someone else’s wife? He must return her to her rightful husband!

But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night and said to him, “Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man’s wife….Now then, return the man’s wife, for he is a prophet, so that he will pray for you, and you shall live. But if you do not return her, know that you shall surely die, you and all who are yours.” (Gen 20:3, 7; emphasis added)

4.4. God commanded Hosea to take an adulteress back: “Then the LORD said to me, ‘Go again, love a woman who is loved by her husband, yet an adulteress, even as the LORD loves the sons of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes'” (Hos 3:1).

Opponents must remember that Jesus identified remarriage as adultery. Hence, they must stop looking for Old Testament examples of remarriages; and instead, they must look for biblical examples of what to do with a repentant adulteress.

My reasoning is simple: Hosea’s wife committed adultery. Yet, God commanded Hosea to forgive her and take her back. Therefore, it is not sin to remain married to a repentant adulterer. Now, continue following me: Remarriage is adultery. Therefore, upon termination of the remarriage the first spouse may forgive and take the repentant spouse back. Their marriage was never dissolved by divorce in the eyes of Almighty God.

4.5. Common sense. If we believe that remarriage is adultery (and all Christians do, lest they contravene Christ), then common sense ought to guide us to do the right thing: Stop the adultery and return the woman back to her husband. If my child admits to stealing a cookie from his brother, upon repentance and confession, I instruct the child to give the cookie back to his brother. Justice, in such cases, is quite rudimentary. I would say that it’s innate.

4.6. Conclusions: It is not a sin to dissolve a remarriage, repent of adultery, and subsequently return to one’s first spouse. The apostle Paul clearly gave the divorced woman the option of staying unwed (to any other man) or returning back to her husband. Deuteronomy 24:2 only proves that it is an abomination to return to your first spouse if you truly became someone else’s spouse. However, because of Christ’s declaration, remarriages no longer make a person the genuine spouse of another. In reality, according to Christ, the person still belongs to his/her first spouse and the remarriage is merely a sham. According to Jesus, remarriage is simply adultery. As Hosea shows, adultery can be stopped, repented of, and the offended spouse could choose to forgive and accept the adulterer back into the marriage. A return back to the spouse is not sin; rather, it is an act of reconciliation and forgiveness. God also told Abimelech that he was a dead man if he kept another man’s wife. Finally, common sense informs us that full restoration is the surest pathway to justice.


In closing, I wish to draw your attention to the words of an opponent:

“If divorce did not open the possibility of remarriage, we would expect Moses to prohibit it. If a remarriage to a third party does occur, the new marriage is not regarded as adulterous or the equivalent of adultery. From God’s point of view, it is a true marriage.” -A. Philip Brown II,  in his analysis of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, emphasis added 

Brown’s analysis of an Old Testament text, as written in the book of Deuteronomy, is correct: Moses did not prohibit remarriage, and the new marriage was not the equivalent of adultery. Therefore, from God’s point of view, the remarriage was a true marriage. However, in the New Testament, Jesus does make remarriage equivalent to adultery and thus, from God’s point of view, it is not a true marriage. Let us maintain consistent reasoning.

Perhaps nothing demonstrates the universal clarity of Jesus’ words than an admission by an opponent. Jeremy Pierre is the Dean of Students and Associate Professor of biblical counseling at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. When asked whether or not a person should divorce a spouse from an unbiblical marriage, his response was that the person ought to remain in the remarriage. However, as he closes out his response, it seems as if he realized that he was contradicting the words of Christ. Pierre probably knew that people would ask, “If Christ identified remarriage as adultery, then why is Jeremy Pierre instructing people to remain in adultery?” Unfortunately, instead of plainly admitting disobedience to Christ, Pierre decides to call the apparent contradiction a “mystery.” Pierre writes in his closing paragraph: “Returning to the present situation you asked about, I want to acknowledge the mystery of all this—-that one can live repentantly in an unbiblical second marriage” (Source:, emphasis added). Thus, Pierre makes the illogical (and sinful) declaration that one could actually be repentant of the sin of remarriage and still intentionally continuing to live in the sin of remarriage. If Jesus identified remarriages as adultery, then how is it a real marriage? “It’s a mystery,” says Pierre. Instead of calling it a “mystery,” I would urge Pierre to simply obey the straight-forward teaching of Christ. Namely, since remarriage is adultery, repent by terminating the remarriage. There is no “mystery” to any of this if one is willing to obey Scripture.

Finally, I wish to implore all to simply study the Scriptures. Take the words at face value with a desire to obey. Jesus once said, “Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (Jn 5:39). Nothing that I say ultimately matters for I am simply a man. Rather, go directly to the words of Christ: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery” (Lk 16:18). Jesus has spoken perspicuously: Remarriage is adultery. Will we believe and obey our Lord?

Note: The Church’s historic understanding of divorce and remarriage is easily seen by the following statements:

“Likewise, women who have left their husbands for no prior cause and have joined themselves with others, may not even at death receive communion.” -Council of Elvira, Canon 8 (c. 300, Elvira was a Church council held at the end of the third century and the beginning of the fourth in southeast Spain)

“You must not have wives whose former husbands are living; nor may you, women, have husbands whose former wives are living. Such marriages are adulterous, not by the law of the courts, but by the law of Heaven. Nor may a woman who by divorce has withdrawn from her husband become your wife while her husband lives.” -Augustine (Sermon 392, c. 2, emphasis added)

“Anyone saying that one is free to marry a wife that has been put away is not a Christian; he is a Jew.” -Ambrose (Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, 8)

“Because it not being lawful for her in her husband’s lifetime to contract a new marriage, sinful desire may gradually prevail against her. Suppose her to marry. The blame of the constraint she lay under is upon you: and what you account to be marriage is adultery. For what does it matter whether one commits that crime with open avowal of it, or as one who is an adulterer under the mask of a husband. Only that it is more grievous to have contrived a law to warrant crime than a secret perpetration of it.” -Ambrose, commentary on Luke 16:18, emphasis added

Posted in Marriage & Family | Tagged , , | 29 Comments

1 Timothy 2:8-3:3

by Dr. Stephen Kim

[8] I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;

Paul addresses each sex uniquely. He begins by addressing men. The “place” is describing the church—the gathered assembly of believers, the ἐκκλησία—as seen by 1 Timothy 3:15: “If I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). Additional evidence that demonstrates this to be instructions for the context of the church is seen by the fact that the word ἄνδρας (men) is in the plural.

Both men and women are susceptible to anger, but it is far more the “sin of choice” among men. It is a dastardly exhibition of the flesh and one that if continually practiced, will bar one from entering the kingdom of God (cf. Gal 5:20). In lieu of anger is supposed to be the peaceful lifting up of hands in prayer—which the men are advised to do in churches. Woe to the church that is full of angry men fighting one another!

[9] likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,

“Likewise” denotes that an instruction will run the same vein as the preceding exhortation. Just as men were told how to behave in church, so now, the women are likewise instructed. The sin that is more acutely commonplace among women is the sin of vanity and outward adornment. Hence, the apostle warns them to wear respectable apparel—garments that will not draw the attentions of others within the church off of God and upon them. The Greek word for “respectable” is the word κοσμίῳ and it carries the sense of “respectability” and “seemly.” The prohibition is not a complete ban on the braiding of hair, gold, or pearls; for if we apply the same hermeneutic to the similar command given in 1 Peter 3:3, then we must conclude that there is to be a ban on clothing! Rather, Paul is simply instructing the women not to dress seductively or ostentatiously. Braided hair, gold, and pearls were worn by first-century women to draw attention to their statuses, their wealth, and beauty. This would be a self-glorifying distraction during worship.

[10] but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

Instead of those outward and ostentatious practices mentioned in verse nine, Paul instructs women to have a godly heart which is naturally displayed through the doing of good works (cf. Eph 2:10, 1 Tim 5:10).

[11] Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.

The Greek verb here (Gk. μανθανέτω) for “let…learn” is in the imperative form. Hence, the apostle is actually commanding that women learn quietly. Speaking to teach denotes authority (cf. verse 12), whereas silence denotes submission. For the Christian woman, the embrace of submission to biblical authority figures is a mark of spiritual maturity (cf. 1 Pet 3:6).

It is also implicit within the command that churches ought to be teaching their women— a great novelty in the Pauline era. Both first-century Greek culture and Judaism did not hold women in high regard. Paul’s instruction to teach women, therefore, was a revolutionary concept that showed a very high regard for women. Claims of Paul’s misogyny are false and misplaced.

[12] I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.

“Permit” is the Greek word ἐπιτρέπω and it carries the meaning of “allowing.” Paul, under divine injunction, does not allow a woman to teach (Gk. διδάσκειν). Implicit within this injunction is the fact that teaching within the church carries authority. This, therefore, certainly prohibits women from becoming elders within the church because the role of elder has both teaching and governance responsibilities (cf. 1 Tim 3:2). The command explicitly prohibits women from any teaching or governing position within the church which exerts authority over men within the church. Thus, this does not simply mean that a woman cannot be a pastor, but it also prohibits her from teaching or leading church-based home Bible study small groups which contain men. Writer and scholar, Wayne Grudem writes,

I would not think it appropriate for a woman to be a permanent leader of a home fellowship group, especially if the group regularly carries out pastoral care of its members and functions as a sort of mini-church within the church. This is because the leader of such a group carries a governing authority that seems to me very similar to the authority over the assembled congregation that Paul mentions in 1 Timothy 2. Given the frequently small nature of churches meeting in homes in the first century, and given the “pastoral” nature of the responsibility of leading a home fellowship group, I think Paul would have thought of this as included in 1 Timothy 2:12, “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men.” Furthermore, “she is to remain quiet.” (Grudem, Wayne. 1995. But What Should Women Do In The Church? The Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 1, no. 2: 5.)

Grudem’s point is simple: Small group Bible studies which meet in homes feel and function as extensions of the church (this is what he means by “mini-church”). In such settings, there is teaching occurring, the Bible is being expounded, and men are often present alongside women. Therefore, in such cases, women should not be “teaching or exercising authority,” as per the 1 Timothy 2:12 prohibition. Grudem further elaborates and notes that many churches in the New Testament often met in homes—which were a very similar type of gathering to today’s “small group.”

Some have claimed that αὐθεντεῖν, “to exercise authority,” simply means that a woman could preach, but that she should not do so in a domineering way. However, solid scholarship shows that αὐθεντεῖν does not mean “to domineer” or “to flout authority,” but that it means “to have (exercise) authority” (Kostenberger 1995, 103).

“She is to be quiet” is a prohibition against women speaking when the church is assembled. In 1 Corinthians 14:34, Paul commands the churches that, “the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.” A woman’s silence within the church, therefore, displays her Christian maturity and submission to the lordship of Christ.

A common objection is, “But what about the fact that Paul acknowledges that women have the ability to prophesy in 1 Corinthians 11:5?” The answer is quite simple: If Scripture does not contradict, then 1 Corinthians 11:5 must simply be referring to women who prophesied outside of the context of the assembled church (cf. Acts 21:9). Philip’s four virgin daughters certainly did prophesy, but they did so at home and never within the context of the assembled church. A woman prophesying in the middle of the gathered church would be considered “shameful” by God (1 Cor 14:35).

[13] For Adam was formed first, then Eve;

The first of two reasons the apostle gives for prohibiting women from speaking and exercising authority over men. Rather than rooting his prohibition on some temporal, cultural context; Paul instead roots it on a pre-Fall, Creation Ordinance. According to Paul, because God made man first, therefore a woman is to never exercise authority over him. This original chronology in creation by God was evidently done intentionally and with purpose. Hence, Paul’s prohibition stands for all time and is not subject to change based on societal shifts. The church’s embrace of this divinely-ordained authority structure is an acknowledgment of the lordship of Jesus Christ.

[14] and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Adam (the man) was not deceived by the serpent in Genesis 3. This also implies that Adam was a transgressor by choice—not deception. Nevertheless, the point of this verse is to demonstrate what occurs when a when a woman leaves and disrupts the God-ordained structure of male leadership. Leaving the protection and guidance of her husband, Eve became vulnerable and susceptible to attack and deception. Adam, abdicating his God-given leadership, follows Eve into sinning against God. This was a complete reversal of God-ordained sexual roles—one which is now being restored through complementarian churches. It is important to note that although Eve fell first, God however, held the man principally responsible (Gen 3:9). It is in Adam (not Eve), we all attain Original Sin (Rom 5:19), and it is through the God-man, Jesus Christ, that believers are imputed righteousness (Rom 5:19).

[15] Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

The Greek word for “saved” is in the future, indicative, passive tense. Additionally, Paul uses the plural “they.” Combined, these facts show us that Eve is not the person in view in verse fifteen. Instead, Paul is talking about all future women.

Within the context of Scripture, Paul is clearly not saying that women will attain salvation by bearing children for that would contradict the New Testament gospel of salvation by faith alone. The word for “saved” is the Greek word σωθήσεται and it could mean “preserved,” “healed,” or “rescued.” The word appears numerous times in the New Testament without any reference to salvation (cf. 2 Tim 4:18; Matt 8:25; 9:21, 22; 24:22; 27:40). Consistent with the theme of this epistle, Paul is saying that as a married woman embraces a role that is clearly and uniquely feminine (i.e., childbearing), she testifies to her genuine faith and is thus being “preserved” by God unto eternal life. Childbearing, therefore, is merely a wonderful fruit of a woman who is genuinely saved. Instead of rebelling against God’s design in creation; by bearing children, the woman testifies to the fact that she has lovingly embraced and that she cherishes her God-given identity as a female. This act of obedience brings glory to God and helps assure her of her salvation.  “Love,” “holiness,” and “self-control” are also fruits of a genuinely saved individual.

[3:1] The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.

The pastor’s job is a good work. The first word translated as “aspires” is the Greek word, ὀρέγεται, and it is a reference to an external “desire towards.” The second word translated as “desires” is the Greek word, ἐπιθυμεῖ, and it is a reference to a strong inner desire. Both words could be translated as “desires” but in the Greek, they carry two different meanings. The man of God must possess both desires. He must not only outwardly aspire to the pastorate, but he must also be deeply internally convinced that he is called by God to do the job.

“Overseer” is translated for the Greek word ἐπισκοπῆς, and it refers to the office of pastor, elder, or bishop (most literally, it is the word “bishop”). The New Testament uses these terms often interchangeably to refer to the same office (cf. 1 Pet 5:1, Acts 20:17, Titus 1:5). Overseers were responsible for literally “overseeing” the church. They oversee the flock by teaching and preaching the Word of God, protecting the sheep from error, conducting discipline, praying for the flock, ordaining other elders, and living by example.

[2] Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

“Must” is used in the Greek to show that these traits are absolutely necessary within the man who leads God’s house. Holy living is a mandatory requirement for the pastor. “Above reproach” is another way of saying “blameless” or without flagrant sin. The pastor must be above reproach because the flock is called to imitate his example and way of life (Heb 13:7). Furthermore, the messenger represents the message and as an ambassador of Christ, the pastor must represent Christ well through holy living.

“Husband of one wife” most plainly means that the man must be faithfully married to one woman. This certainly eliminates polygamists from the ministry, but it also eliminates adulterers, homosexuals, and those who have been divorced and are now remarried (cf. Matt 19:9). The term “one woman man” also denotes sexual purity. The pastor is to be the model of sexual purity—in both thought and act. He cherishes his wife and guards himself from all sexual temptations (Gen 39:12). Therefore, a pastor who falls into adultery could be forgiven and reinstated into the church, but forever loses the ability to fill the pastorate. Such a person is disqualified. This text also exposes the Roman Catholic mandate of a celibate clergy as a false teaching.

“Able to teach” is the translation of the Greek word διδακτικόν. The pastor must therefore, not only teach the Word of God, but he must also have the ability to teach it well. The word has the notion of giftedness and capacity. It is not enough for the pastor to know the Word of God for himself, but rather, he must also be able to teach it so that others can clearly understand it. In conjunction with 1 Timothy 2:12, this verse effectively eliminates the possibility for a woman to be a pastor. Pastors must be “able to teach,” whereas women are commanded not to teach (cf. 1 Tim 2:12). Thus, women are prohibited from being pastors. A woman who becomes a pastor is living in disobedience to the Word of God.

[3] not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

The terms here all delineate what it means to “be above reproach” (v. 2). Drinking is not a sin, but getting drunk is. It is wise and favorable, therefore, for pastors to stay away from alcohol altogether for even the impression of drunken dissipation is destructive and not fitting for a man of God. In our age of churches using mixed martial arts to draw crowds into the church, this verse stands in stark opposition by stating that a man of God must be “not violent but gentle.” Pastors are not to do their work because they are driven by a greed for money (cf. 1 Pet 5:2), but instead, they are to do it out of a genuine love for God and people. And although they will reason and contend for the faith, pastors will not be “quarrelsome” and leave such disruptions to the unregenerate.


Baldwin, Scott H., Andreas Kostenberger, Thomas Schreiner, ed. 1995. Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.

Posted in Theology, Uncategorized | Tagged | 3 Comments


IMG_20160430_195339by Dr. Stephen Kim

I was ambling down the aisles of a local bookstore when I happened upon a section entitled, “Christian Living.” With my curiosity perked, I began to examine the titles on the shelves. Sadly, a quick perusal of the books in the section gave me a fast measure of what passes for “Christianity” in the minds of my fellow New Yorkers. Suffice it to say, there was not a single book on what is central to Christian life.


Just what is at the core of Christian life?

Reproduction is the sign of healthy life–both biologically and spiritually. The Bible opens with a command to multiply (Gen 1:28). It closes with a glorious picture of every tribe and nation gathered for the eternal worship of the resurrected King of kings (Rev 7:9). The person who has an intimate relationship with Jesus will be busy making disciples because at the core of Christian living is disciple-making. Jesus, the Groom, desires fruitful reproduction. To be Christian is to be a disciple-maker:

“By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.” (John 15:8)

Imagine being on your death bed, with only minutes to go. Family members are surrounding your hospital bed as your moment of departure draws nigh. All of a sudden, a desperate thought goes through your mind: “My goodness! I’ve never led anyone to Christ! I’ve never discipled anyone!” Can you imagine getting ready to meet the Lord Jesus without having ever made a single disciple?

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations.” (Matt. 28:19)

S. Lance Quinn, former faculty associate a The Master’s Seminary, once had this to say about Matthew 28:19: “Because of the context, it is possible to say that Christians and disciples-makers are synonymous terms.” Are you a Christian? Then, you’re a disciple-maker.


The following are four essentials for disciple-making:

1. Choose.  Much time is wasted when Christians try to disciple individuals who later turn out to be unbelievers. Discipleship is like baptism: we’re only supposed give it to those who sincerely believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Choose the person carefully. Invest your time and energy in someone who wants to learn and grow. (Preferably, older men ought to teach younger men and older women ought to teach younger women.) Before beginning any discipleship program, first make sure that the person believes in the gospel. Go through the points of the gospel with him and see if there is a heart-felt confirmation of the entire message. Routinely check up on his devotional life. Is he daily in his Word and in prayer? Is he actively cutting off sin that you’ve addressed (Matt 18:15)? Use caution here. Your time is precious. If, for example, a recent convert professes Christ but continues to get drunk (even after multiple admonitions), then promptly stop the discipleship program. Inform him that you don’t believe he’s saved and that discipleship is only for a true disciple of Jesus. If he protests, guide him to 1 Corinthians:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10)

2. Learn. The fact that God has given us pastors and churches proves that God expects discipleship to be a life-long endeavor for all of us. If you’re not part of a church that disciples, then chances are very unlikely that you will one day disciple someone. Why? Because you can’t disciple unless you’ve first been discipled. A teacher will only go as far as his own education. A  person can’t teach second-term Calculus if he’s never learned it. So make sure that you’re part of a church that disciples. Grow in the Word yourself. Carefully study a good systematic theology text (a great discipleship resource to use on someone else!).  The good news here is that everyone should be able to disciple someone–at least for a season. If you’ve just led a person to Christ, then surely you know more about the faith than he does. Sure, he might eventually go on and become a seminary professor, but at least for a season, you could disciple him. Finally, make sure that you believe in the gospel and have a daily walk with Christ. God very rarely uses anyone who does not walk in step with Him:

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. (John 15:4)

3. Concentrate. There’s a reason why Jesus limited his group to twelve (and even within the twelve, he had a smaller group of three [i.e., Peter, James, and John]). Most of us will do best if we disciple one person at a time. Be sure not to get side-tracked with that person. Make sure to pray for that person each day. Discipleship sessions could easily become engulfed in “life talk” if one is not intentionally guarding the time. Yes, there is time to intersect and merely “do life” with the disciple; but merely playing basketball with a person or drinking coffee with him is not discipleship. Discipleship is teaching God’s Word. It is centered on God’s Word and the doctrines of faith. It is good to set a time each week to meet with your protégé, plan a lesson (either from the Bible or from a biblically sound text), guide the discussion, answer questions, and repeat the following week. Don’t worry about it if it feels structured and routine–those are good things! In time, the discipleship will take life and the disciple will forever be grateful that you took the time to prepare and teach on eternally worthy matters. Concentrating your efforts on select individuals will also save you money. It is expected that the person who is discipling invests both time and financial resources on his student. Having fewer students will lighten your financial load and ease the time crunch.

4. Model. We learn through words, but we learn a whole lot through watching actions. The most powerful testament to the gospel is a life that aligns to it. As a pastor, I know that the gospel is compromised if I preach a great sermon, but go home and live in sin. Of course, you can’t model perfectly, but your student ought to see and smell the gospel in your day-to-day life. Through the stories that you share, the life decisions that you make, the discipline that you exercise, the commitment to God’s Word that you exhibit, and from the mistakes that you’ve made, the disciple is sharpened and encouraged to imitate  you as you imitate Christ. Jesus was the perfect example in this arena. After teaching his disciples, he would then go out and show them how it’s done: “After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee” (Matt 11:1).


Make no mistake about it! Christianity is not about merely saying a prayer to accept Jesus as Savior. To be a Christian is to be a disciple-maker. It is important to pray and begin–there’s not a moment to lose. Ask God to give you someone who you could disciple. Start with the people around you. Moms and dads, disciple your kids. Siblings, disciple one another. Ask your small group leader if you could begin discipling a spiritually younger member within the church. Start a discipleship group with some co-workers. Join a pastor’s study group to get deeper into the Word and the doctrines of our Faith.

Wherever you are, the time is now. The King has given us a commission: “Go and make disciples.” Don’t waste your life.

Posted in Christian Life | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment