In Defense of Roy Moore

Roy Moore is not the first man to be falsely accused of sexual assault by a woman.  Thousands of years ago another Godly man named Joseph was falsely accused by his Master’s wife of sexually assaulting her as we read in the Genesis account below:

“6 And he left all that he had in Joseph’s hand; and he knew not ought he had, save the bread which he did eat. And Joseph was a goodly person, and well favoured.

7 And it came to pass after these things, that his master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me. 8 But he refused, and said unto his master’s wife, Behold, my master wotteth not what is with me in the house, and he hath committed all that he hath to my hand;

9 There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? 10 And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day, that he hearkened not unto her, to lie by her, or to be with her.

11 And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business; and there was none of the men of the house there within. 12 And she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out.

13 And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and was fled forth, 14 That she called unto the men of her house, and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice:

15 And it came to pass, when he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled, and got him out. 16 And she laid up his garment by her, until his lord came home.

17 And she spake unto him according to these words, saying, The Hebrew servant, which thou hast brought unto us, came in unto me to mock me:

18 And it came to pass, as I lifted up my voice and cried, that he left his garment with me, and fled out.

19 And it came to pass, when his master heard the words of his wife, which she spake unto him, saying, After this manner did thy servant to me; that his wrath was kindled.

20 And Joseph’s master took him, and put him into the prison, a place where the king’s prisoners were bound: and he was there in the prison.”

Genesis 39: 6-20 (KJV)

So as we can see from this story women do falsely accuse good men of sexual assault.

In a previous post I took on the issue of Judge Roy Moore dating teenage girls while he was in his early thirties.  I showed from the Scriptures that an older man looking to court younger women was not sinful or wrong by Biblical standards.

In this followup article I want to address the accusations against Judge Moore as to whether I believe they should be believed.

First let me say in relation to Roy Moore dating girls in their teens (with their parents consent) he has stumbled greatly in his answers.  I think this is because he knows how politically incorrect it was. I think he should come forward and just set the record straight that he dated teenage girls while in his thirties with their parent’s consent.  There was nothing wrong with him doing that.

Judge Moore wanted a wife who was around 15 years younger than him.  Eventually he married a woman when he was 38 and she was 24(so 14 years younger than him).  There was nothing wrong with a man wanting this. And I know some will respond that “there is a big difference between a 38 year old marrying a 24 year old and a 30 year old dating a 14 year old”.  The only difference is in the way our sinful feminist culture looks on it.  See my previous article “Was Roy Moore violating Biblical commands in dating teenage girls?”

The biggest problem with the accusations against Roy Moore is not just that it took almost four decades for his accusers to come forward with these accusations.  I accept the premise that it is hard for women to talk about sexual assault because of feelings of shame or fear of a person in power. I can even accept that a woman might have held on to this for decades and only feels free to discuss it when she sees other women come out against the man who sexually assaulted her.

But in my view there is a huge glaring problem that is missed in all of this that makes me doubt the credibility of his five accusers.  If a man is a sexual predator it NEVER STOPS.  Once a predator, always a predator.  They cannot help themselves – it is a compulsion for them.

If we look at the Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey sexual assault allegations you have accusers spanning decades and even in the last couple of years.  They don’t stop. But when you have an isolated few years that a person was supposedly a sexual predator and then all of a sudden there is no one for the rest of their life this does not pass the smell test.

Now I am willing to admit that if they can show a pattern over his entire career of women accusing him of molestation and they can show even women over the past few years that come out then I will reconsider the allegations against Roy Moore.  But if they can only show women during that limited time period than this will not be enough to convince me that Roy Moore is a sexual predator.

Women never falsely accuse men of sexual assault?

There are two things we must accept about sexual assault.  The first is that men have been sexually assaulting women since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.  Does that mean all men? Of course not.  Does it even mean most men? Of course not.  But there has always been a segment of men that were sexual predators.  Most Christians would agree to what I just said.

But what we forget is there are two sides of that coin. While there have always been a segment of men that were sexual predators there has also always been a segment of women that have falsely accused men of sexual assault.

Our country has gone from one extreme to another when it comes to sexual assault.  There was a time when women would hardly ever be believed about sexual assault.  But now we have gone to the other extreme where as a society many in our culture will not even entertain the idea that women actually do bring false accusations of sexual assault against men.

God condemns sex outside of marriage (which would include rape and sexual molestation) AND being a false witness. As we can see from the story of Joseph in the Bible, false accusations have been going on just as long as actual sexual assault.  We cannot acknowledge the reality of the one while ignoring the reality of the other.

5 Reasons women falsely accuse men of sexual assault

Women have been using sex as a way to manipulate men from the time of the fall. Whether it is through actual sexual relations with them or falsely accusing those of illicit sexual relations women have used sex to gain get what they want.

Here are 5 reasons women falsely accuse men of sexual assault:

  1. To hurt his reputation for personal reasons(they don’t like him or he offended them in some way)
  2. To manipulate him into doing what they want. They might want sex as with Joseph and Potiphar’s wife. They might want him to give them money or some position. It might be about child custody or other divorce issues.
  3. They are being paid by a third party to hurt his reputation for other reasons.
  4. If the person is famous, they want their moment in the spotlight.
  5. They are mentally ill.

Are those accused of sexual assault guilty until proven innocent?

One America’s most famous founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, once stated:

“That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.” [1]

This concept of “innocent until proven guilty” was enshrined into the American legal system by America’s founders.  This concept of innocent until proven guilty is actually firmly rooted in moral law in the Bible:

“15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;

18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.”

Deuteronomy 19:15-20 (KJV)

If you look at the passage above we see that God requires multiple witnesses and never just one to any crime.  The fact that 5 women have come out against Judge Moore does not meet this threshold. These are 5 separate crimes he is accused of. Each crime only has one witness who is both the accuser and supposed victim.

By both Biblical principles of justice as well as America’s founding principles of justice Judge Moore must be declared innocent of these crimes unless there are witnesses to these crimes.

I want you to notice one more thing about the passage from Deuteronomy 19:15-20 that I just cited.  Do you notice how hard God was on someone being a false witness? He actually ordered that whatever punishment would have happened to the person they falsely accused should be done to them.  Imagine if we sent false witnesses to jail for as long as those they falsely accused?

The sad reality is that in recent decades this foundational principle of the American Republic has come under assault especially in the area of sex related crimes.

Many years back I was speaking with a lawyer who attended my church. I will just say that he was more liberal than the average person in our church but he and I used to have interesting conversations with me taking the more conservative position and him taking the more liberal position.

I asked him about sexual assault and the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”.  I threw out a question to him.  I said “Would you agree that the American legal system treats sex crimes differently than almost any other type of crime?” and he replied “what do you mean?”

I said “It appears to me that in our system of justice if you are accused of any type of sexually related crime you are considered guilty and must prove your innocence – would you agree with what I just said as a lawyer?”  His answer was “for the most part the answer is yes.”  I was shocked by his answer.  But he followed up that answer with something more disturbing.

He stated “I believe it is right to be that way.  Unlike other types of crimes such as murder or theft it often extremely difficult for the victim of sexual assault to prove it ever happened. Except for in the case of actual bodily fluids or hairs or skin under the finger nails such as in the case of rape you can’t always prove sex crimes.  For instance you can’t prove if a man just gropes or fondles a woman.   So I believe the law is right to put the burden of proof on the person being accused to show their innocence.”

He told me what made him believe as he did.  It was not adult women being assaulted by men.  It was the fact of child molestation that brought him to that position.   He said “children cannot defend themselves and often they cannot prove molestation and the state should put the burden on the adult who molested the child to prove their innocence.”  Eventually he realized if this applied to children who were victims of sexual assault then it must equally apply to adults that were victims of sexual assault.

All I can say is I was dumb founded by his answer. But the scary part is there are millions of Americans who want to make this exception to our country’s judicial principle of innocent until proven guilty.

So in essence when it pertains to sexual assault we have reversed Benjamin Franklin’s famous axiom and our culture is now willing to destroy the lives and reputations of or even incarcerate 100 innocent men rather than let one sexual assault go unpunished.


The fact is there are many crimes including murder, assault and theft that go unpunished.  This will always be the case because we are not God and we cannot be everywhere and see everything.  This sadly means that some victims of sexual assault whether it be rape or molestation will never see their perpetrators punished for the crimes they have committed.

But we cannot as a society do what the Bible warns against and “do evil, that good may come” (Romans 3:8).

Until I see multiple witnesses and a pattern of behavior over his entire life I will not believe these accusations against Judge Moore.  I believe he is threat to the establishment and both the Democrats and Republican establishment are trying to get this man out.  I hope he fights and stays in till the end.

If good men continue to bow out of politics because of false sexual assault allegations then we will not only loose in elections, but we will also loose justice in this nation.


[1] BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.—The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Albert H. Smyth, vol. 9, p. 293 (1906)

Was Roy Moore violating Biblical commands in dating teenage girls?

Does the Bible condemn the practice of older men dating teenage girls? With the revelations in the news about Alabama Republican senate candidate Roy Moore having dated teenage girls decades ago when he is was in thirties this question has been raised amongst Christians.

Now let me be clear as a Bible believing Christian in regard to the sexual molestation accusations against Judge Moore.  If it can be proven that Judge Moore engaged in any type of sexual touching or sexual relations with these woman outside of marriage that would be by definition fornication and something that the Bible clearly condemns.

But that is not the question I am discussing here.  The fact is, even if Judge Moore did not engage in any extramarital sexual relations with any of these women there are many in our culture, including Christians, who would condemn him simply for dating teenage girls while he was in his early thirties and this is the question we will tackle in the article.

What is the minimum age for women to marry in the Bible?

There are two factors for determining a woman’s minimal age for marriage.

A woman must reach puberty first before she can marry

Two Bible passages, one from the Old Testament and one from the New indicate that the minimal age for marriage of woman is when she reaches puberty.

“7 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare.

8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine.”

Ezekiel 16:7-8 (KJV)

In the passage above from Ezekiel we read of God’s love story with Israel.  He presents himself as a wealthy man who finds an infant girl who had just been born and is left for dead in a field.  He takes her as ward in his home and when she reaches puberty (grows breasts and pubic hair) he declares that “thy time was the time of love” and he takes her as his wife.

In the New Testament the Apostle Paul tells of a similar story of a man with a young woman who is his ward whom he has an attraction to:

“36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.”

I Corinthians 7:36 (KJV)

When it says “pass the flower of her age” it literally means “ripe” as when a fruit is ready to be plucked and eaten.  Like Ezekiel 16:7-8 it refers to the fact that she has reached puberty and is now ready for marital love.

So according to both the Old and New Testaments a girl must first reach puberty before she can marry and when a girl reached puberty she was no longer considered a child but was now considered a woman.

A father determines at what age his daughter marries

There was a second factor in determining a woman’s age at the time of her marriage and we find this in the book of Exodus:

“16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.”

Exodus 22:16-17 (KJV)

Today our culture treats a father’s blessing for his daughter to marry as a cute tradition and nothing more. Fathers are expected to rubber stamp any man their daughter says she wants to marry because after all it is her life, her body and her choice right?  Fathers have had their authority over whom their daughters marry completely removed.  However, we can see in the Scriptures that this was not just some tradition but we see that God grants fathers the authority over whom their daughters may marry.

Now a word caution on this.  A father’s authority over his daughter while being similar to that of a husband over his wife is different in some key aspects. A father’s authority is temporary.  He is there to raise her and prepare her for her future husband.  His authority and ownership over his daughter is not meant to be for life as a husband’s authority is meant to be for life.   So if a father is inhibiting his daughter from marrying well into her adult life in order to keep her in his home he has failed in the role God has given him.  He is sinning against God and his daughter by inhibiting his daughter from following God’s first command to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).

The State has no authority over marriage

Many Christians mistakenly think that God has given civil government nearly unlimited authority.  Most Christians think unless the government literally tells us to sin that they can pass any laws they want.  They site passages like this to bolster their belief:

“13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.”

1 Peter 2:13-14 (KJV)

But they neglect the fact that Christ recognizes the concept of limited authority for civil government:

“They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

Matthew 22:21 (KJV)


Christ said “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s”.  That means “Obey the civil government in the areas that God has given to civil government”.

Romans 13:1-5 and 1 Peter 2:13-14 teach us that the role of government is to protect the people and punish evil doers according to God’s law. Search the Scriptures and you will find that the only authority God gives in marriage is to the family and specifically to the father.  Of course we know that the father is still under God’s authority in regard to marriage and he must regard his ownership of his daughter as a temporary stewardship in preparing her for her future husband.

What this means in practical terms is state marriage licenses are not required by God.  A marriage is valid in God’s eyes if a man has the permission of a woman’s father or if her father is gone and she is living on her own she consents to marriage.  He can enter into a covenant of marriage with her in private and that marriage is just as binding in God’s eyes as if they had a public ceremony with a pastor or priest and state marriage license.

This also means whether states outlaw all marriage under the age of 18 or even 21 Christians may disregard such laws as the usurping of authority over the family by the civil government.  Christians can and may practice civil disobedience against such laws.

How our culture mocks God’s laws

Julie Zauzmer, writing for the Washington Post recently published an article entitled “Roy Moore allegations prompt reflections on fundamentalist culture in which some Christian men date teens”.  In this article she assembles a chorus of opponents of the practice of older men dating teenage girls.

Here are some excerpts from that article with people mocking God’s laws:

“That courtship of underage girls is especially common in conservative religious communities.

“We should probably talk about how there is a segment of evangelicalism and home-school culture where the only thing Roy Moore did wrong was initiating sexual contact outside of marriage. 14 year old girls courting adult men isn’t entirely uncommon,” Kathryn Brightbill, who works for the Coalition for Responsible Home Education, tweeted Friday, prompting a flurry of responses from other people who also had watched teenagers date much older Christian men…

Ashley Easter, who grew up in a fundamentalist Baptist church where courting was the norm for teenagers, said, “That was the first thing I thought of with Roy Moore.” In her church community in Lynchburg, Va., Easter said, fathers had complete control over whom their daughters were allowed to date, and she could see how a father might set his teen daughter up with a much older man.

A woman’s role is to be a wife, a homemaker and someone who births children. The man’s role is generally to be established and someone who provides the full income,” said Easter, who runs the Courage Conference for survivors of church sexual abuse. “It may take longer for a man to reach stability. While a woman of 15 or 16, if she’s been trained for a long time looking after her younger siblings, in their eyes she might be ready for marriage.” [1]

While regrettably I was not able to have my children homeschooled for a variety of reasons I do consider myself a part of that “segment of evangelicalism and home-school culture where the only thing Roy Moore did wrong was initiating sexual contact outside of marriage”.

Many of my friends growing up were homeschooled before they came to the Christian School I attended in high school. My parents homeschooled my niece and nephew who they adopted and I have cousins that have homeschooled their children as well.  And yes I grew up in Bible believing fundamental Baptist churches that while being imperfect did teach that “fathers had complete control over whom their daughters were allowed to date” according to the Word of God.  The sad thing is that many of these Baptist churches that formerly stood on the doctrines of Biblical gender roles have in recent decades abandoned these doctrines to appease feminists both inside and outside their churches.

What has been the result of the abandonment of courtship and the authority of the father over his daughter in regard to marriage? A massive increase in promiscuity among our young people who favor dating for fun instead of courtship for marriage. In many cases a huge delay of the marriage of young women well into their middle or late 20’s and a decrease in the size of Christian families. Young women are often more interested in their education and careers than in performing the main function God created them for which was to be wives and mothers.

Ashley Easter mock’s the fact that she was taught that “A woman’s role is to be a wife, a homemaker and someone who births children. The man’s role is generally to be established and someone who provides the full income”.

The sad part is Mrs. Easter growing up in a fundamental Baptist church knows the Scriptures actually support that very definition of a woman’s role that she mocks:

“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”

1 Timothy 5:14 (KJV)

The false “Child Marriage” narrative

I and other Christians who do not oppose marriage for women under the age of 18 are opposed to child marriage.  But we are opposed to child marriage as God defines it in the Scriptures and not how our culture defines child marriage.

My readers know I am no stranger to writing on controversial topics especially as they relate to the Bible and marriage and I know on this subject I may have some disagreement from even some of my strongest supporters.  But I would like you to truly consider something.

In the Scriptures we read:

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

Romans 12:2 (KJV)

What the Bible calls “child marriage” and what our culture calls “child marriage” are two different things.  God says a girl is a child before she reaches puberty and that after she reaches puberty it “was the time of love” (Ezekiel 16:8) – in other words time for marriage. She was no longer considered a child, but was now considered a woman.  God forbids men from marrying a young girl who has not “passed the flower of her age” (I Corinthians 7:36) or in other words a girl who has not reached puberty.  She is still considered a child and is not eligible for marriage.

So yes if a man wants to marry some prepubescent girl he is in fact in violation of God’s law and that is “child marriage” we can all agree is wrong.

But our feminist and egalitarian culture has expanded the definition of how long girls remain children.  Our culture has expanded childhood for girls past the onset of puberty all the way to age 18.

In an article entitled “Why can 12-year-olds still get married in the United States?”, Fraidy Reiss writing for the Washington Post states:

“Unchained At Last, a nonprofit I founded to help women resist or escape forced marriage in the United States, spent the past year collecting marriage license data from 2000 to 2010, the most recent year for which most states were able to provide information. We learned that in 38 states, more than 167,000 children — almost all of them girls, some as young 12 — were married during that period, mostly to men 18 or older. Twelve states and the District of Columbia were unable to provide information on how many children had married there in that decade. Based on the correlation we identified between state population and child marriage, we estimated that the total number of children wed in America between 2000 and 2010 was nearly 248,000.

Despite these alarming numbers, and despite the documented consequences of early marriages, including negative effects on health and education and an increased likelihood of domestic violence, some state lawmakers have resisted passing legislation to end child marriage — because they wrongly fear that such measures might unlawfully stifle religious freedom or because they cling to the notion that marriage is the best solution for a teen pregnancy…

Regardless of whether the union was the child’s or the parents’ idea, marriage before 18 has catastrophic, lifelong effects on a girl, undermining her health, education and economic opportunities while increasing her risk of experiencing violence.” [2]

Reiss throws in marriages as young as 12(even though the majority were age 15 or higher) to really get the hairs on the back of people’s necks up.

If you were to tell people in Biblical times that a girl did not become a woman until she was 18 they would have laughed so hard at you they would have fallen over. Let me give you a little bit of historical backdrop on this before we condemn twelve year olds marrying:

Rev. Dr. Eugene Weitzel stated this about the Jewish view of early marriage:

    “As we noted above, the Jews clearly understood that the first command that God gave to Adam and Eve was “increase and multiply” (Gen 1:28). In fact one rabbi firmly believed that “A bachelor is not truly a man at all.” Furthermore, celibacy was looked upon as an anomaly, almost a disgrace.  Now keep in mind that Jesus Christ, a devout, practicing Jew who dearly loved his Jewish faith, grew up with this view of celibacy.  He also knew that his people believed in early marriage.  Many rabbis, even during Jesus’s time, taught that eighteen was the ideal age for marriage for a man but certainly not later than twenty-four. He knew too that girls were ready for marriage as soon as they were physically ready to conceive and bear children, which according to the law was twelve and one-half years. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was probably no more than fourteen years old when she gave birth to the Son of God.” [3]

Lucien Deiss in his book “Joseph, Mary, Jesus” writes:

    “How old could Mary have been? Young girls usually were betrothed as soon as they became a woman.  It was believed they reached puberty at about twelve or twelve and a half. Boys it was believed reached the age if puberty a year later. Marriage could take place one year after puberty a year later. In general, it was held that men could wait until the age of eighteen or twenty before marrying so that they could have time to build a house and plant a vineyard.”[4]

My point is that is highly likely from a historical perspective that Mary was betrothed to Joseph at 12 years old and most likely gave birth to Jesus by the age of 14. Now we know in the case of Mary that Jesus’s conception was of the Holy Spirit.  But under normal circumstances young women were commonly giving birth to their first child by age 13 or 14.

So are we willing to condemn Joseph the father of Jesus for child marriage because he most likely betrothed Mary at such a young age?  Worse yet are we as Christians willing to condemn God the Holy Spirit for conceiving a child in Mary at such a young age? Is God guilty of child abuse?

Reiss laments about the lack of nationwide state bans on marriage under the age of 18 “because they wrongly fear that such measures might unlawfully stifle religious freedom”.  Sorry mam – but that is exactly what such restrictions on marriage would be – a stifling of religious freedom.  But sadly I fear that Reiss and her allies may someday get such legislation passed.  We have seen in the last 20 years an onslaught of legislation that assaults religious liberty whether in the form of taking parental rights or giving new rights to the homosexual and transgender movements.

Another Christian blogger who goes by the name “nickducote” wrote the following in an article entitled “Jonathan Lindvall and Child Marriage: The Maranatha Story”:

“Marrying girls off so early does several things. For one thing, it precludes them having other options. They have not finished their academic education and are not qualified for anything besides homemaking. And even then, what fifteen-year-old is truly ready to run a home in today’s world? For another thing, such early marriage means a girl marries before she has time to completely mature and form her own outlook on life. But then, sadly, that’s rather part of the point. This sort of arrangement, after all, functions not as an independent adult making her own decisions but rather as a property transfer—and it is explicitly stated as such.” [5]

While I disagree with his positions and his values I think this blogger has actually done a very good job of concisely saying what those who oppose marriage of young women really have a problem with.  They have a problem with girls not having “other options”.  They have a problem with women not being “qualified for anything besides homemaking”. They have a problem with a woman not having “her own outlook on life”. They have a problem with marriage being “a property transfer”.

I am not against women having an education nor do I think the Bible is. But our society has turned education – especially higher education and college into a human right.  We have turned education into a false god that our culture worships.  It is not a human right according to the Word of God.

Education is fine as long as it is a help and not a hindrance to the primary tasks God has given us to do.  In the case of men education is often a help in one of their primary God given duties which is to provide for their families.  Education can be a help to women as well in being able to homeschool their children in the future.  But far too often education for women because more of a hindrance than a help to them pursuing their primary mission that God has given them.

A lot of women delay marriage for many years in the pursuit of higher education and often they are tempted to pursue careers before marriage.  The result is a large amount of women marrying well into their mid to late 20’s past their prime fertility years.  I wrote an article a few years back on this issue of women’s fertility entitled “Women’s ovaries don’t agree with Feminism” and I encourage you to read that article if you have not already.

It is not a crime against humanity if a woman does not receive a higher education or for that matter does not even finish high school and is only “qualified” for homemaking. This is one of the primary purposes for which God designed woman.  A lot of Christians misuse Proverbs 31 to try and teach that God approves of the modern concept of a career woman while ignoring this key verse in that passage:

“She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.”

Proverbs 31:27 (KJV)

How many career women actually look well to the ways of their household? How many career women instead barely cook for their families and leave their houses in disarray? How many are too tired to care for their children because they have dedicated all their energy to strangers outside the home? How many career women look at their husbands as their help meet instead of looking at themselves as their husband’s help meet?

The Proverbs 31 wife did go outside the home and buy and sell things but her focus was always on serving her home and her husband.  That was the center of her life – that was what gave her life meaning and fulfillment.  That is how she brought glory to both God and her husband.

Do women really need to form their “own outlook on life” before they marry?

God is portrayed as the potter to the clay in three different ways in the Bible.

In the New Testament God is portrayed in his sovereign creator role as the potter and individuals humans are the clay:

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”

Romans 9:20-21 (KJV)

We also see the children of Israel regard God as their father being their potter:

“But now, O Lord, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.”

Isaiah 64:8 (KJV)

But there is a third role in which God pictures himself as the potter of the clay.  It is as a husband to his wife Israel:

“The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying,

2 Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.

3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.

5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.”

Jeremiah 18:1-6 (KJV)

And for those that wish to challenge that this is God talking to Israel as his wife I challenge with this other passage from earlier in the book of Jeremiah:

Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the Lord.”

Jeremiah 3:20 (KJV)

God literally equates “O house of Israel” with a wife who treacherously departs from her husband.   If you look at how the phrase “O house of Israel” is used in other Old Testament prophecy books it is always used in the sense of Israel as a nation – the wife of God.

So if a Christian rejects the idea of a husband being able to mold his wife as the potter molds the clay from this analogy of God and Israel they do so only from a position of pride and a rejection of the husband/wife relationship as it is pictured in the Bible.

When Christians bloggers like nickducote say women need to form their own outlooks on life before marrying he is saying they should be firm in who they are and what they believe before they marry.  The problem with this is that just as God wanted his wife Israel to be moldable to the way he wanted her to be – so too young women should be moldable to the way their husbands want them to be.

In a previous article I wrote entitled “Why unity in marriage has more to do with the wife than the husband” I dove into this concept that unity in marriage primarily has to do with the wife being moldable to her husband.

This does not mean a woman can never have her own opinions or even that young women cannot and should not have strong faiths even as young ladies before they marry.  My daughter who will be turning 16 in a few months has a strong Christian faith.  But I have taught her to keep herself moldable for her future husband and be prepared for the fact that he may see some things differently than I do as her father.  I only have a temporary stewardship over my daughter and one day I will give her to the man that will be her husband for life. It is to that man, and not me that she must mold herself.  It is with that man that she must become one flesh.

For decades Christians have done just as this blogger has recommended and encouraged women to have higher educations, form their own outlooks on life and ultimately marry much later.  And what has the result been? We have produced generations of contentious and brawling wives as the Bible warns against:

“9 It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house…

19 It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.”

Proverbs 21:9 & 19 (KJV)

Christian marriages now have the same divorce rates that non-Christian marriages have because we have rejected Biblical gender roles as taught in the Scriptures and Churches in mass have fully embraced modern feminist ideologies.

Is it wrong to view marriage as “a property transfer”?

Ever since Roe vs Wade and Second wave feminism the entire concept of a women belonging to men whether it be their fathers or their husbands was thrown out the window.  Women for decades have chanted “it’s my body and I can do with it as I want” whether in reference to abortion or even in sexually denying their husbands.

While it may seem appalling to our feminist and egalitarian culture marriage is in fact classified as a transfer of property in the Bible.  The Hebrew word used to speak of a woman getting married or being married or a man marrying a woman was the verb form the Hebrew “baal” which was literally “to be owned”.  The noun form of the Hebrew word “baal” was used to describe a husband which was literally “owner”.  See below this passage which described adultery and the penalty for it:

“If a man be found lying with a woman married[baal – verb] to an husband[baal-noun], then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.”
Deuteronomy 22:22 (KJV)

So we could literally take the first part of Deuteronomy 22:22 and translate it as “If a man be found lying with a woman owned by an OWNER/MASTER…”

In Deuteronomy 24:1 where we read about divorce and the first part references marriage where it states “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her” this again uses the verb form of baal for marriage.  It literally could be translated as “When a man hath taken a wife and owned her…”

Even Proverbs 31 which Christian feminists like to use to falsely teach that women can have careers and abandon their duties to the home to others shows the ownership of a husband over his wife.

“10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

11 The heart of her husband[baal – noun] doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.”

Proverbs 31:10-11 (KJV)

So verse 11 of Proverbs 31 literally says “The heart of her OWNER/MASTER doth safely trust in her”.

My point is this blogger and many other Christians and non-Christians alike may not like it – but the Word of God frames marriage itself as an owner/owned relationship.  When a man marries a woman he takes ownership of her.  He becomes her master.  Biblically speaking, marriage under normal circumstances is absolutely a transfer of property in the sense of a father giving away his daughter in marriage to her husband.

Now we know as Christians that a husband is not to abuse his position as his wife’s master but that he is to love her as Christ loves the Church and washes her spots and wrinkles as Ephesians 5:25-27 states.  But husbands are the masters, the owners and the heads of their wives just as Christ is the master, owner and head of his church.

That’s just the Old Testament!

A lot of Christians and non-Christians alike will criticize any use of the Old Testament as a found for moral teachings especially as it relates to marriage.  This is huge topic but I will just give you a few pointers that defuse the false argument that there is no more binding moral law in the Old Testament.

Jesus Christ said of the Old Testament:

“17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Matthew 5:17-19 (KJV)

That Apostle Paul wrote:

“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”

Romans 3:31(KJV)

Later in the New Testament we are told in Hebrews 7:12 “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law” and this in in reference to the fact that under the new priesthood of Christ the ceremonial and civil laws given to Israel as a nation are removed for the Church.  The Church unlike Israel is not a physical nation but rather a spiritual nation made up all peoples from all nations.

So for those who want to say “well if you belief daughters are owned by their fathers and wives are owned by their husbands then why are we not stoning kids for being rebellious or wives committing adultery?”  Great question and the answer is a very easy answer.  The answer is that adultery and rebellion of children toward their parents are still just as much sins against God as when he stated this thousands of years ago.  It is the penalty for these sins that has changed in the New Testament since the Church is not a nation it cannot exercise these types of punishments.

I will end with this passage from the Scriptures for those who find the Old Testament or the Bible repugnant to their modern American values. For you Christians who put more faith in studies conducted by man that say women should not do what God created them to do because it is “unhealthy” or “catastrophic” for them.

“Let God be true, but every man a liar”

Romans 3:4 (KJV)


[1] Zauzmer, Julie. (2017). Roy Moore allegations prompt reflections on fundamentalist culture in which some Christian men date teens. The Washington Post,

[2] Reiss, Fraidy. (2017). Why can 12-year-olds still get married in the United States. The Washington Post.

[3] Weitzel, Eugene. J. (2010). I Want to Be a Husband and Father for Life and a Catholic Priest Forever. U.S.: Xilbris Corporation. p. 113

[4] Deiss, Lucien (1996), Joseph, Mary, Jesus, Liturgical Press, p. 25, ISBN 978-0814622551

[5] nickducote. (2017). Jonathan Lindvall and Child Marriage: The Maranatha Story. Jonathan

Why does the Bible make me feel worthless as a woman?

Modern America teaches women that they should judge their own worth by how intelligent they are, how educated they are, how independent they are and by how successful they are in their career.

These new standards of a woman’s worth are a radical shift from the standards by which women have historically judged their own worth.  Consider the table below which illustrates stark contrasts between how women judged their own worth before the 1960’s and the new standards after the 1960’s.

The measure of a woman before and after the 1960’s

Pre-1960’s Post-1960’s
Beauty Intelligence
Potential for having children(age/health) Education Level(College/University)
Submissiveness Independence
Cooking/Home Keeping Skills Career/Income Potential

We can make two primary observations about the differences between these two lists.

The first observation is that before the 1960’s a woman’s sense of self worth was very much tied to what she had to offer a future or current husband.  After the 1950’s women were taught to stop centering their sense of worth on what they had to offer a future or current husband and to concentrate more on what they wanted for themselves regardless of how attractive or unattractive such pursuits or qualities made them to men.

The second observation we can make from these two lists is that the modern list for what woman are told should give them their sense of worth is identical to what men historically have been told should give them their sense of worth.

In other words, women today are told that they must compare themselves to men to have any sense of worth.  So for example, if a woman has a submissive spirit this is not seen as a quality adding to her worth, but rather one that takes away from her worth.  If a woman does not speak her mind whenever she has a disagreement but rather holds her tongue and shows deference to men this quality is not seen as a worthy one, but one that takes away from her worth.

And if a woman has no desire for a higher education or career ambitions, but rather seeks to find a man and serve him by bearing his children and caring for his home this women is viewed today as the most worthless of all.

Recently I received a heart felt plea as comment to my blog from a woman who stated she has recently become a believer in Christ. She said that as she reads the Scriptures I present on this blog on why God made woman she has found herself feeling depressed and worthless by the Biblical view of womanhood.

It actually is easy for me to understand why she might feel worthless after comparing herself to Biblical standards for what should give a woman her sense of worth because they are so different than our modern standards. It is like studying for one test, only to be given a completely different test.

The name she wrote under is Adrienne.

Adrienne’s Dilemma

“As a new believer who is desperately trying to pull myself out of the pit of feminism, I find myself becoming depressed reading some of the articles and comments on I had bought into all the lies about marriage being an equal partnership. The whole “we are a team” as opposed to the master/ servant relationship it really is. I completely understand that everything (including men and women) is made for God’s pleasure.

I struggle with the knowledge that everything I am is made for my husband’s pleasure. Kinda makes one feel worthless as a person. I feel like I am not allowed to have my own tastes or preferences in anything. Should I even bother having an opinion or should I ask my husband what my opinion is?

It also kind of makes me feel like God hates women. After all, there are no women in heaven, and probably never will be. The Godhead is male, the angels are male and from what I understand there will be no marriage or children in heaven/eternity so there will be no need for gender. The pastors I have talked to about this tell me either:

  1. all women will be turned into men at the final judgement.
  2. women have no souls/ no need for salvation and when we die we just cease to exist like the animals.

They said God only created us as women b/c He had to for reproductive purposes not b/c He wanted to. This all hurts and I have no idea what is biblical or not. I just started reading the bible and have not made it past exodus yet. How do I find joy in my role as a woman if I feel like I am nothing to God or anyone else?”

My Response to Adrienne and other women who feel worthless in God’s sight

Adrienne, I could summarize your concerns as a new believer with this statement:

Why does the Bible make me feel worthless as a woman?

The first reason that you feel “worthless”(or have low self-esteem) when looking at the Biblical view of womanhood is because you still have a faulty view of what gives a woman or people in general their worth.  The Bible tells us as Christians that we have been preprogrammed with faulty ways of thinking by both our sin natures as well as the cultures and families we were brought up in.

When we begin our walk with God we must recognize this daily and seek to unlearn what our sin natures, cultures and families have taught us and renew our minds with what is good, acceptable and perfect according to the will of God which is found in his Word.

“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

Romans 12:2 (KJV)

Women definitely have souls

I know in past centuries there were some who threw around such rumors as a church doctrine that teaches women do not have souls.  But the Bible supports no such notion.  I am unaware of any Pastors or churches today that preach such nonsense.  I would be very curious to know who you spoke with or at least their denomination.

The Scriptures show us definitive proof that women have souls and here is just one example from Mary, the woman who God chose to give flesh to his Son Jesus Christ:

“46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.”

Luke 1:46-47 (KJV)

So yes there will be women in heaven and women in hell just as there will be men in heaven and men in hell.  Every soul goes to one of these two destinations.

Did God just create women for procreative purposes?

While the pursuit of motherhood for women is definitely honored and even commanded in the Scriptures (“be fruitful and multiply“– Genesis 1:28) that is not the only reason God made woman.  In fact God could have made men as asexually reproducing beings as other organisms on earth are.  He did not need to create a different type of human being for humans to reproduce.

Instead God created woman for a much more glorious purpose which we will explain next.

Equal personhood does NOT mean equal opportunity

One of the falsehoods we have been taught in American society is that if a certain class of people does not have equal rights or privileges with other classes of people then they are said to be treated as “less than human” or not as persons.

You will find no support for such a definition of personhood in the Scriptures.  In fact the Scriptures routinely show different rights for people based on various classes.  Free women had more rights than slave women.  Indentured servants had more rights than slaves but less rights than free men. Free men had more rights than free women, indentured male and female servants, male slaves, or female slaves.

In other words, in God’s view, our personhood is NOT determined by our social class or the rights we have or do not have.

But now let’s bring this back to men and women.

Every human being is given a soul by God which inhabits our “vessel” which is the word the Scriptures often use to speak to our bodies.  God made two types of vessels, one that is classified as the “weaker vessel” (I Peter 3:5) and thus the other by comparison is the stronger vessel.  The souls of women inhabit the weaker vessel and the souls of men inhabit the stronger vessel.

But then we must understand that God did not arbitrarily make one vessel weaker than the other.  He made one vessel stronger and one vessel weaker for a glorious purpose. The scriptures tell us that God made man to be his image bearer – to bring God glory by imaging him:

“7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

I Corinthians 11:7-9 (KJV)

This passage of Scripture, which is part of a divinely inspired commentary on the Genesis account, tells us that God created man to bring him glory by imaging him.  God then created woman from man to glorify man.

But how does a woman fully bring glory to man as God intended in his purpose in creating her? We will answer that question in our next section.

How does a woman bring glory to her husband and thereby bring glory to God?

The scriptures reveal to us the full and glorious purpose for which God designed woman (and man) in the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Ephesians:

“22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church”

Ephesians 5:22-29 (KJV)

Again just as with I Corinthians 11, we have here in Ephesians chapter 5 divine commentary from God regarding the Genesis creation account.  God did not create women as soulless creatures simply for procreative purposes but rather he created them for man to be able to fully image God.  Man needed someone to love as God loves mankind by leading them, protecting them and providing for them.  This is why we God made woman “the weaker vessel” (I Peter 3:7) because just as mankind is weaker than God and needs him for all these things, so too woman was designed to be weaker than man and need him for these things.

So how does a woman glorify her husband as God intended her too? By modeling what God desires from his Church in honoring, reverencing, submitting to and serving her husband as the Church is to serve Christ.

What is the measure of a woman’s worth by God’s standards?

As I said at the beginning of this post, God’s standard’s for what gives a woman her sense of worth and what our culture says gives a woman her sense of worth are two very different things.

The Scriptures tell us that a virtuous woman is worth more than rubies:

“Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.”

Proverbs 31:10 (KJV)

In another passage the Scriptures tell us that a virtuous woman is her husband’s crown:

“A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones.”

Proverbs 12:4 (KJV)

Are rubies not of great worth? Is a crown not of great worth? We know these things are of great worth. But how does a woman make herself worth more than rubies to her future or present husband?

Seven ways a woman makes herself of great worth in God’s View

Do you as a woman want to be of great worth to your future or current husband?  If you reject the world’s definition of the worth of a woman and follow God’s definition you will have great worth both to God and to your husband.

Below are seven ways a woman can be a ruby and a crown in the eyes of God and her husband:

  1. She happily seeks to play her part in modeling the Church’s subordinate role to Christ. (Ephesians 5:22-33)
  2. She happily seeks to marry, bear children, and keep the house for her husband. (I Timothy 5:14)
  3. She happily seeks to be obedient to and submissive to her husband. (Titus 2:5, I Peter 3:1-6, Ephesians 5:22-24)
  4. She happily seeks to reverence her husband and never bring any shame to him or God by her behavior(Proverbs 12:4,I Timothy 5:14,Titus 2:5)
  5. She demonstrates her prudence and wisdom by being discreet and kind in when and how she shares her advice with her husband. (Proverbs 11:22, Proverbs 19:14, Proverbs 31:26, Titus 2:5)
  6. She makes both her inner person and her outer person beautiful to please her husband (Psalm 45:11, I Peter 3:3-6)
  7. She happily sees that God not only gave her to her husband to care for his children and his home, but also to bring him pleasure with her body and she never denies him a drink from the well which is her body. (Proverbs 5:15-19)

Is a wife allowed to have different opinions and tastes than her husband?

Adrienne, you asked “I feel like I am not allowed to have my own tastes or preferences in anything. Should I even bother having an opinion or should I ask my husband what my opinion is?”

Absolutely as a wife you are allowed to have your own opinions and “tastes” by which I think you mean preferences.  In fact the Scriptures say these two things are part of what makes a woman of great worth to her husband:

“House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: and a prudent wife is from the Lord.”

Proverbs 19:14 (KJV)

“She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.”

Proverbs 31:26 (KJV)

So the Scriptures tell us that a prudent and wise wife are of great value to a man.  What is prudence? Prudence is planning for the future.  A wife who has things planned out for the needs of her home whether it be clothing needs or food needs or the other needs of the children is of great value to a man.  And wisdom is not just knowledge, but knowing how to use that knowledge in a right way.  This is also of great value to a man.

So yes you are absolutely allowed to have opinions and preferences and these can be beneficial to your future or current husband. But the key concept to understand is that you are not allowed to express your opinions and preferences in any way you want or at any time you want and you need to accept the fact that your husband may not always follow your opinions.

Let me give a few examples to better illustrate this.

The President of the United States has a chief of staff. The President delegates certain powers and responsibilities to the chief of staff to run the White House and represent the President publicly.  A good chief of staff certainly has his own opinions and preferences as to how the President should do certain things but he keeps those differences private and always shares them in a respectful and reverent way with the President.   If the President says “this is the way it will be”, then the chief of staff submits to that direction.

But from the outside world’s perspective – the chief of staff is always in lock step with his President.   One other thing about what makes a good chief of staff to a President.  The chief of staff realizes he is there to serve the President and not vice versa.  He realizes that he is there to help implement the President’s agenda – but never to set it.

This is the way a wife is to be toward her husband in regard to her opinions and preferences.  When she shares opinions and preferences with her husband she needs to ask herself “I am sharing this opinion or preference to help further his agenda or my own?”

For example – your husband may set these agenda items for your marriage and your family:

  1. He wants to have regular sexual relations with you at least 3 times a week.
  2. He wants the children to clean their rooms on a daily basis.
  3. He wants the children to do their homework on a daily basis.
  4. He wants to have certain budget priorities for the family.

I could come up with a much larger list but you get my point.  Now as a wife you could privately meet with him and share your opinion on how to best meet his agenda goals.  For instance in the sexual arena you could share your sexual preferences to help him better please you and thus have more sexual pleasure in the bedroom.  You could say maybe mornings work better than evenings sometimes for sex.   All of this is meant to further his agenda for you both to have a good sex life together as a couple and not simply to further some agenda that you have.  Maybe he wants oral sex – but you would prefer that he bathe before you do that.  You could share things like this with him in a private setting in a respectful manner.

In regard to the children – you could share your opinions on how to best implement his agenda items that they clean their rooms and do their homework.  The same goes for the budget.

One last thing in regard to your opinions and this would even apply to my chief of staff example with the President.  Sometimes a President will not accept the recommendation of his chief of staff.  Sometimes he may even accept the recommendation of another advisor over his chief of staff. In this same way you must accept that your husband will not always accept and act on your opinion or your preferences.

Your husband may actually take someone else’s advice against yours as his wife and you need to accept that and be OK with that.

A lot of Christian wives get offended by this.  But you need to realize as a Christian wife that if you are angered by your husband taking someone else’s advice over yours this comes from a place of pride.  You are one of his advisers, but not his only adviser as so many wives falsely see themselves.

The other thing to remember is that contrary to false teachings today you are not the Holy Spirit for your husband and your opinions, like his are not inerrant.  To put it bluntly, it is possible for a man to have a wife who is stupid in certain areas or a wife to have a husband that is stupid in certain areas.  But the chain of command remains.  I don’t get to say because my boss does something stupid that I no longer have to listen to him or respect him as my boss.  In the same way the chain of command in a family is not dependent on the husband’s intellect.  A wife must always submit to and obey her husband unless he asks her to directly sin against God.


I hope that if you are a Christian woman like Adrienne reading this that you will realize God has glorious plan in creating you as a woman.  You are not some soulless creature only made to procreate for mankind.  You were created to bring glory to God by bringing glory to man.  You are an indispensable part in helping to model the relationship of the Church to Christ with your future or current husband.

You need to come to reject the lies of this world.  You need to unlearn what the world has taught you gives women their worth and renew your mind according to God’s view of you – not this evil world’s view.

This world will tell you to compete with your future or current husband for power and equality rather than placing yourself in subjection to him so that you can fulfill the purpose for which God made you.

And here is the secret the world won’t tell you that I have heard from so many women through this blog and other ways. You need to realize that the woman God designed you to be, the nature that he gave to Eve is buried within you.  For someone women there is a little rubble to clear to get to it and for others there is a mountain of rubble to clear.  Some of the rubble simply comes from the corrupting influence of sin or to say it another way – some of the rubble you were simply born with.  But other parts of the rubble may have come from the corrupt teachings of our culture, or your parents or even your own bad life experiences.

Either way – you have to recognize this spiritual rubble and clear it away to see the woman that God truly designed you to be.  You need to clear that rock away from the ruby God meant you to be and then you will make yourself of great worth to God and your future or current husband.

7 Principles for Making Biblical Marriage Vows

It may surprise many Christians to know that while the Bible speaks a great deal on marriage it never actually gives any examples of marriage vows. But the Bible does give us principles and teachings about marriage that can help us to construct Biblically based marriage vows.

For many engaged couples writing marriage vows can be a very scary thing for a variety of reasons.  One is that it is hard for some people to express their feelings or put their feelings into words. Another might be that they are afraid they might say something that offends people at the wedding. Still another is that they may feel pressure to promise or say they something they know they can’t or won’t keep in the future.

My goal in this article is to help alleviate these concerns for you and help give you some Biblical principles to help you write your vows and also provide you with some real examples. I encourage you also to keep an open mind to what the Scriptures have to say on marriage.  There will probably be many things in this article that will challenge your preconceptions about marriage.  But as you read the Scriptures presented here I encourage you to remember what the Bible teaches us:

“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

Romans 12:2 (KJV)

My prayer is that after you finish reading this article that you will come away with a renewed passion to not be conformed to our culture’s view of marriage, but rather to conform yourselves as a Christian couple to God’s view of marriage as presented in his Word.

Is it “marriage vows” or a “marriage covenant”?

First let’s clear up some confusion.  You may read Christian articles online or you may have even heard a pastor in your church say “Marriage is not based on vows, it is based on a covenant!” But what many Christian teachers fail to recognize is that while not all vows are covenants, all covenants are vows. The Scriptures prove this when God pictures his marriage to Israel:

“Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine.”

Ezekiel 16:8 (KJV)

We can see here that when God entered in his covenant marriage with Israel – he swore unto her.  That he vowed unto her this covenant.

So then the answer to the question of “Is it “marriage vows” or a “marriage covenant”?” is that it is BOTH!

Some Christians try and teach that Christ outlawed the making vows but this is not the case.  I encourage you to read my article entitled “Is it wrong for Christians to make vows or oaths?” for more on this subject.

The conclusion I came to in that article regarding vows was that Christ was taking on the corrupt system the Jewish leaders setup allowing people to get out of their oaths based on what they swore the oath upon.  Christ was saying our word is our bond – if we make an oath then we must keep it. We should swear by nothing on this earth, but only by God as the Bible commands.  We should always consider our vows carefully and not easily enter into them.  And above all – we should never ever make a vow that we know up front we cannot or will not keep.

What type of love are Biblical marriage vows based on?

There are three types of Biblical love that may occur between a couple seeking marriage and then later these types of love should occur within marriage.

Phileo – Affectionate, feelings based loved – this is the love that is based on emotional attachment to another.  It is usually very strong in the beginning phases of a relationship especially during the engagement period and the first year or two of marriage.

Eros – Sexual love.  This is the love that has to do with physical attraction and desire toward one another.  Again as with Phileo love, this love is usually very strong at the beginning of a relationship and through the first year to two years of marriage.  And contrary to those Christian teachers who say this has no part in Christian marriage this type of love has an entire book of the Bible dedicated to it in the Song of Solomon.  But this love is one that must be contained and controlled until a couple enter into the covenant of marriage.  We see this warning in Song of Solomon 2:7:

“I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please.”

Agape – Unconditional love of the will based in duty and commitment toward another.  Phileo and Eros love are often reactionary types of love to the attributes or actions of another. When Phileo love and Eros love fade because of changing circumstances, Agape love remains because it based in a choice.

Biblically based wedding vows should never be made with reference to Phileo or Eros love.  This is not because these two types of love are bad. Christian marriage can and should have both these types of love in it if it is to be everything God intended it to be. But the foundation of Christian marriage is Agape love because it will weather the storms of life and will remain in those times when Phileo love and Eros love may wane.

If you are a young Christian couple reading this – you may think your affection toward each other (Phileo love) and sexual attraction (Eros love) will never fade.  You are convinced of it! But don’t just take my word for it – ask five other Christian married couples that have been together at least 10 years or more.

The reason I ask you to ask five couples is because most likely you will get one or two that simply lie to themselves and others to put on a show.  But if you ask five married couples who have been married for a longer length of time most of them will admit to you that there have been many times in their marriage where their Phileo and Eros love toward each other has waned and the only thing that kept them going was their Agape love toward one another as Christians.  It was the commitment they made to each other before God when they entered into the covenant of marriage that helped them weather the storms of life.

One last part I want to add on this subject of love in marriage vows.  I am not saying a couple cannot say words of affection toward each other and express their Phileo love toward one another at their wedding ceremony. You certainly can do this.  But these words of affection should come before or after the marriage vows and should never be mixed into your vows.  Your vows should be based purely in Agape in love.

Do marriage vows have to include all the duties of marriage?

Nothing in the Scriptures say you have to reference all the various duties of husbands and wives toward one another when you enter into a covenant of marriage.

Your vows could be very concise and they need not be verbose.  In fact your vows could be as concise as the groom saying “I take you as my wife” and the bride saying “I take you as my husband”.

Nothing needs to be said about a covenant, the duration of marriage or the duties of husbands and wives to each other in marriage.  There does not need to be a priest or pastor present, nor does it have to be done in a church.  It does not even require a state marriage license.

On caveat I would add is that while the man needs no permission to enter into marriage from his parents if the woman is not a divorced or widowed woman and “being in her father’s house in her youth” then she and the man she wishes to marry must have her father’s blessing to marry.  In fact if they marry in secret and he finds out and disapproves a father has the spiritual authority to annul any of his daughter’s vows in including a vow of marriage – see Numbers chapter 30 for more on this.

However, just because marriage can be entered into so easily does not mean that it SHOULD be entered into easily.

The Scriptures tell us this regarding vows made to God (and vows of marriage would be included in this):

“2 Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few. 3 For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool’s voice is known by multitude of words.

4 When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. 5 Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.”

Ecclesiastes 5:2-5 (KJV)

It is foolish and wrong to hastily enter into any vow and to hastily enter into a vow of marriage is the perhaps the most foolish of all.

Let me mention something else on the “easiness” of entering into the marriage covenant.  In Biblical times not only was the father’s permission required for marriage, but a bride price was required.  For some men this was a half a year’s wages. Men were required to prepare a home for their bride to be able to demonstrate to her father he was ready to take her as his wife.

The idea today of two young people who just randomly decided to get married without the man being able to provide for his wife in one way or another was rare and not the normal practice.

Some might say “Well we are not compelled to live by examples in Biblical times of marriage customs”. That is true if the statement regarding marriage is descriptive, rather than prescriptive.  If a command is given that would impact marriage then this still stands. A father’s ability to override his daughter’s vows while she is in his house still stands.

Also Exodus 21:10-11 and Ephesians 5:29 show that a man is required to provide for the physical needs of his wife.  If a man seeks marriage to a woman but cannot yet provide for her then he must wait to enter into the covenant of marriage with her until he can provide for her.

One last thing on the subject of “concise vows”.  Make no mistake, even if the groom simply says  “I take you as my wife” and the bride simply says “I take you as my husband” you are still entering into a covenant of marriage together whether you say the word “covenant” or not.  It is God who defines the parameters of marriage not man.  Even though you are not mentioning any of the duties or purposes of marriage they still apply as much to you as if you had mentioned them in your vows.

Ignorance of God’s laws regarding marriage it is not an excuse for breaking God’s law regarding marriage.

That is yet another reason why couples should not hastily enter into marriage and should consider their vows carefully before making them.

We need to take great care with more verbose wedding vows

If you choose to have more verbose wedding vows that “I take you as my husband” or “I take you as my wife” then great care needs to be taken as you utter these words before God.

Verbose marriage vows should be an affirmation of what the Bible says are the distinct purposes, responsibilities and rights of the husband and wife in the marriage covenant. Nothing should be added or taken away from marriage as the Bible defines it. In fact not only is it sinful to add to or take away from what God has established regarding marriage, but any vow which adds or takes away what he allows or commands regarding marriage is null and void in God’s view. For example, to say “until death do us part” without quantifying that with God’s allowance for divorce in the case of certain sins is by definition taking away from marriage as God has defined it.

Now let just put a word in here on divorce.  I know there many good Bible believing Christians who disagree on God’s allowances for divorce.  If you are truly convinced before God that there is absolutely no allowance under any circumstances for divorce and with this conviction in mind you add “until death do us part” with no caveats then in my view this is not an intentional sin, but a sin of ignorance as I believe the Bible clearly does give allowances for divorce.

But if you see certain allowances for divorce in the Scripture as I demonstrate in my articles on that subject and then you add “until death do us part” without the Biblical allowances for divorce that is a greater sin in my view.  And this brings us to our next principle regarding the construction of Biblical marriage vows.

And now I want to share another crucially important principle in when it comes to making verbose marriage vows.

If you are going to write verbose marriage vows and you want them to be Biblically based you must account for sin in marriage just as God accounts for sin in marriage in the Bible.

If you are a woman – you must come to the realization that the man you so passionately love now is the same man you will sin against in the future.  There are going to be days when you do not submit to him as the Church submits to Christ. There are going to be days that you do not reverence him as you should and there will be days when you are contentious and angry with him.

If you are a man, you may not always have the passionate feelings of love that you do now toward your wife to be.  There are going to be days when you do not love her as Christ loves his Church. There may come a day when in a moment of cowardice you do not protect her from others or even protect her from herself.  There may come a day when you dishonor her and do not dwell with her according to knowledge as the Bible commands.

Please don’t fall for the lie that your heart tries to tell you that you will never fall short of your God given duties in marriage toward your spouse.  Because in one way or another you will.  The Bible tells us “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9).  Your vows need to take into account the very real possibility of sin on your part as well that of your future spouse.

This is why in the example vows I will give I mention the sin nature and the inability for us to perfectly love our spouse as God would have us to.  This why we need to avoid terms like “always” and “never” in our wedding vows but instead we can use words like “try” or “endeavor” as we submit ourselves to the Lord on the daily basis.

Another important point to make is if you are going to have verbose marriage vows you need to reference the Biblical teaching that marriage is to be a model of the relationship of Christ to his Church.  This is a foundational principle for Christian marriage.

Critical components of this model include the duties of men to be a head and the leader of their wives as Christ leads his Church. Not only should references be made to Christ loving his Church and giving himself for her, but also the reason he gave himself for her to wash her spots and wrinkles and present her to himself a glorious church.

It is a husband’s sacred duty to wash his wife with the Word of God as Christ washes his Church with it and that involved him teaching her the Word and correcting her with the Word.

But we must not forget that husbands are to show grace and mercy to their wives as Christ shows grace and mercy to his church.

The duties of a husband to love his wife as his own body and thus protect and provide for his wife as Christ does his Church should be referenced as well.

In regard to the wife – even though it is extremely politically incorrect to do so – a great emphasis needs to be placed on her submission to him as her head and her reverence for her husband. The Scriptures teach this time and time again toward women and any Christian marriage vows that omit the requirements of submission, obedience and reverence of wives toward their husbands while speaking to the duties of a husband to love his wife as Christ loves the Church are telling half truths about Biblical marriage.

If you will not speak to the duty of the wife to submit to her husband in marriage your vows, then you cannot speak to the husbands love for his wife as Christ loves the Church either.  These are two sides of the same coin.

And again as I said before regarding concise marriage vows even if you don’t mention it in your marriage vows – these things are all required by God in marriage.   And with that being said below are is summary of everything we have discussed up to this point in regard to making Biblically based marriage vows.

7 Principles for Making Biblical Marriage Vows

  1. While all vows are not covenants, all covenants are vows. Marriage is based upon a vow or set of vows which together forms the covenant of marriage.
  2. The marriage covenant, like all other vows, should not be easily entered into it. It should only be done with contemplation and consideration before God.
  3. The Bible does not command that verbose marriage vows be made, nor does it require clergy to officiate, church authority or state authority in the form of marriage licenses. The only authority that may be required for a man and woman to enter the covenant of marriage together is that of the father of the bride if she is still young and living in her father’s house.  However, even if only concise vows are made this does not free the couple from all the responsibilities, rights and purposes of marriage.
  4. If a couple chooses to make verbose vows, then these vows should only affirm the teachings of the Bible regarding the purposes and distinct duties of husbands and wives toward one another in marriage. Christian marriage vows cease to Biblical and binding when they add or take away from the rights, responsibilities and purposes of marriage as defined in the Bible.
  5. When making verbose marriage vows, the sin nature of both the groom and bride should be taken into account in the vows. That means words like “always” and “never” should be avoided.  Instead words like “endeavor” or “try” should use when referencing the couple’s commitment to perform the duties of marriage toward one another.
  6. When making verbose vows, if you are going to add a phrase like “until death do us part” then great care needs to go into this. Unless you truly deny the Biblical allowances for divorce both in the Old and New Testament you need to add this to any statement about remaining together until death.
  7. When making verbose vows you should reference marriage being a model of the relationship of Christ and his Church. It is critical to mention not only Christ loving his Church and giving himself for her but also the submission of wives to the headship of their husbands as the Church is subject to Christ.

Examples of Biblical Marriage vows

Below are three examples I put together based on the principles we have discussed.  The first example of concise vows we already mentioned but I will put it here again for reference.

Example Vows #1 – Concise Biblical Marriage Vows


I take you as my wife.


I take you as my husband.

Example Vows #2 – Moderately Verbose Biblical Marriage Vows

Below is what I would call a “moderately” verbose set of marriage vows that build on the principles we have discussed.   Each set of vows below (one for the groom and one for the bride) are just under 200 words. Not too long, but definitely more expressive than the concise vows I showed in the first example.


I, [insert groom’s name], swear before God to enter into a covenant of marriage with you, [insert bride’s name] and by this covenant I take you as my wife.

I will endeavor to love you as Christ also loves his Church by leading you, giving myself up to wash you with the Word of God as well as showing grace and mercy towards you.

I will endeavor to love you as I love my own body by providing for you and protecting you and I will give my body to you in the marriage bed.

I will endeavor to dwell with you according to knowledge and honor you as my wife.

If you do not break our covenant of marriage I will remain by your side until death takes me.

On this day, I leave my father and my mother and cleave to you as my wife and we will no longer be two, but one flesh.


I, [insert bride’s name], swear before God to enter into a covenant of marriage with you, [insert groom’s name] and by this covenant give myself to you as your wife.

I will endeavor to reverence you as my head as Christ is the head of his Church.

I will endeavor to submit to you and obey you and as the Church is subject to Christ so too I will endeavor to make myself subject to you in everything.

I will endeavor to look well to the needs of our house and be the help meet and homemaker you need and that God has called me to be.

I will endeavor to love you and ravish you with my body in the marriage bed.

If you do not break our covenant of marriage I will remain by your side until death takes me.

Today I leave behind my own people and my father’s house and will become one flesh with you as my husband.

Example Vows #3 – Very Verbose Biblical Marriage vows

Below is a very verbose example of vows I have written.  Again this is just an example and you could add or take away as you see fit as long as you are following the 7 principles we discussed.  Also in this example set of vows I have included Scripture references next to most of the statements so you can further study those passages to see the principles of marriage that I am referencing.

Each of these sets of vows (one for the groom and one for the bride) are about a one page if you print them out.  I have seen couples use one page vows they have written so I don’t think these are two long if you want to have more verbose vows.


I, [insert groom’s name], swear before God to enter into a covenant of marriage with you, [insert bride’s name] and by this covenant I take you as my wife. (Ezekiel 16:8)

Even though at this moment it is my heart’s desire to perfectly love you as your husband I know that because I am a sinner, like my forefathers before me, I cannot make such a pledge because God forbids me from making vows that I cannot keep. (Ecclesiastes 5:2-5)

I can only pledge to endeavor, to try as I surrender myself daily to God’s will for my life and as I lean on him for his grace and power to love you in my own imperfect way. (Romans 7:18-25)

I will endeavor to love you as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. (Ephesians 5:25)

I will endeavor to present you to Christ and myself as a glorious wife, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but to help you to be holy and without blemish. (Ephesians 5:26)

I will endeavor to be gracious, compassionate and merciful toward you as God is gracious, compassionate and merciful toward his people. (Psalm 86:15)

I will endeavor to teach you the Word of God in our home and to be the spiritual interpreter of the Word to you that God calls me to be. (1 Corinthians 14:35)

In my endeavors to wash your spiritual spots, blemishes and wrinkles I will endeavor to rebuke and chasten you from a place of love for you. (Revelation 3:19)

I will endeavor to love you as I love my own body by providing for your physical needs and protecting you as I would my own body. (Ephesians 5:29)

I will endeavor to provide my body to you as a kindness that is due toward you.  (I Corinthians 7:3)

I will endeavor to dwell with you according to knowledge, giving honor unto you as my wife and remembering that you and I are joint heirs of the grace of life. (I Peter 3:7)

As I end my vows of marriage to you I must acknowledge the possibility that in the same way I may sin against you in the future, you too may sin against me as well.

And while it is true that love covers a multitude of sins there are some sins a wife can commit which can break her marriage covenant with her husband. (1 Peter 4:8, Isaiah 50:1, Ezekiel 16:59, Jeremiah 3:8, Revelation 2 & 3)

It is for this reason that I must give to you a solemn warning like God gave to both Israel and his Churches regarding his covenant of marriage to them.

I swear before God to remain in this covenant of marriage with you for the remainder my life as long as you remain faithful to me. If you break this covenant by committing any type of fornication including defrauding me of your body or giving yourself to another or if you abandon me or seek to bring physical harm or death to me I reserve my right before God to end this covenant. (Matthew 19:9, I Corinthians 7:15, Exodus 21:26-27)

But I am hopeful of better things for us and I believe that in you I have found a good thing and also favor with God.  I look forward to rejoicing with you and living joyfully with you for the remainder of our days together as the Lord wills. (Proverbs 5:18, Proverbs 18:22)

On this day, I leave my father and my mother and cleave to you as my wife and we will no longer be two, but one flesh. (Mark 10:7-8)


I, [insert bride’s name], swear before God to enter into a covenant of marriage with you, [insert groom’s name] and by this covenant give myself to you as your wife. (Ezekiel 16:8)

Even though at this moment it is my heart’s desire to perfectly submit to you and love you as your wife I know that because I am a sinner, like the women who came before me, I cannot make such a pledge because God forbids me from making vows that I cannot keep. (Ecclesiastes 5:2-5)

I can only pledge to endeavor, to try as I surrender myself daily to God’s will for my life and as I lean on him for his grace and power to submit to you and love you in my own imperfect way. (Romans 7:18-25)

I will endeavor to remember in my thoughts, words and actions that God made me for you and not you for me. (I Corinthians 11:9)

I will endeavor to remember that I am not my own, but that I belong to you as the Church belongs to Christ. (Acts 20:28)

I will endeavor to remember that I am not your equal any more than the Church is Christ’s equal but rather I will reverence you as my head in the same way the Church is to reverence Christ as its head. (Ephesians 5:23 & 33)

I will endeavor to submit to you as I do unto the Lord and make myself subject to you in everything as the Church is subject to Christ. (Ephesians 5:22-24)

I will endeavor to obey you as Sara obeyed Abraham calling him Lord. (I Peter 3:6)

I will endeavor to meet your desire for me to make myself beautiful as God desires the beauty of his people not only through my outward appearance but also by having a gentle and quiet spirit. (Psalm 45:11, I Peter 3:3-4)

I will endeavor to satisfy you with my body and ravish you with my love. (Proverbs 5:19, Titus 2:4)

I will endeavor to be the homemaker God has called me to be and look well to the ways of our household. (Proverbs 31:27, Titus 2:5, 1 Timothy 5:14)

I will endeavor to submit to and seek out your guidance as my spiritual head in all matters of life and living including marriage and family issues. (1 Corinthians 14:35)

I will endeavor to share my advice with you not in a contentious or angry way, but rather with discretion, kindness and reverence. (Proverbs 9:13, Proverbs 11:22, Proverbs 21:19, Proverbs 31:26, I Peter 3:1-2)

I will endeavor to not shame you either with my words or actions but rather I will endeavor to be your crown and glory. (Proverbs 12:4)

As I end my vows of marriage to you I must acknowledge the possibility that in the same way I may sin against you in the future, you too may sin against me as well.

And while it is true that love covers a multitude of sins there are some sins a husband can commit which can break his marriage covenant with his wife.

It is with these sins in mind that I swear before God to remain in this covenant of marriage with you for the remainder of my life as long as you do not break the covenant of marriage you make with me today.  As a wife I reserve the right given me by God to consider myself freed from our marriage covenant if you defraud me by willfully refusing to provide me with food, clothing and your body in the marriage bed or if you seek to bring physical harm or death to me.  Also, if you abandon me either by divorcing me or by some other means I will no longer consider myself bound to this marriage covenant I make today with you.  (Exodus 21:10-11 & 26-27, Deuteronomy 24:1-2, Romans 7:2-3, I Corinthians 7:15)

But I am hopeful of better things for us and I look forward to rejoicing with you and living joyfully with you for the remainder of our days together as the Lord wills. (Proverbs 5:18, Proverbs 18:22)

Today I leave behind my own people and my father’s house and will become one flesh with you as my husband. (Psalm 45:10, Mark 10:7-8)

Is it wrong for Christians to make vows or oaths?

Some Christians believe that Christ outlawed the making of vows based on Matthew 5:33-37 and James 5:12.  They believe based on these passages it is wrong for Christians to swear allegiance to their country, to swear to tell the truth in court and even to make marriage vows.  But is this conclusion based on sound principles of Biblical interpretation?

First we will look at Christ’s words from the Gospel of Matthew on this subject of vows:

33 “Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ 34 But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil.”

Matthew 5:33-37 (NASB)

I have used the NASB here because I think it communicates the language a little better than the KJV in this particular case.  But both the NASB and KJV accurately reflect a key phrase “But I say to you, make no oath at all” (NASB) and “But I say unto you, Swear not at all” (KJV).

So it appears based on this passage Christ is telling us that we should no longer make oaths or vows which are really the same thing.

Again, James writing under the inspiration of God states this about vows:

“But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment.”

James 5:12 (NASB)

He makes a clear statement here – “do not swear” which seems to echo Christ’s words on the subject.  Many Christians have taken these two passages as undeniable proof that Christians are forbidden from taking vows or oaths.

However, I will demonstrate that such a conclusion violates the following principles of Biblical interpretation:

  1. We must always take the context both of the passage itself and the historical context in which is stated into account as we make our conclusion on any doctrinal matter.
  2. We must always take the entire witness of the Scriptures on a particular subject taking into account both the Old and New Testaments while understanding that God can and does alter his laws from the Old to New Testaments.

What did the Old Testament say about making vows?

In the book of Genesis Abraham made his servant swear a vow to him when seeking a wife for his son Isaac:

“And I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell:”

Genesis 24:3 (KJV)

Later Moses would give these commands regarding oaths to the Israelites:

“Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.”

Deuteronomy 6:13 (KJV)

The Israelites were only forbidden from swearing falsely by God’s name falsely or using it in vain (as in a curse word) as seen in these two passages:

“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”

Exodus 20:7 (KJV)

“And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.”

Leviticus 19:12 (KJV)

New Testament Examples of Vows

The Book of Acts shows that Paul, one of James fellow Apostles and writers of the Scriptures, made a vow and fulfilled it:

“And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.”

Acts 18:18 (KJV)

Paul also made other vows – essentially swearing by God’s name that what he was saying was the truth:

“Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth.”

II Corinthians 1:23 (KJV)

“Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.”

Galatians 1:20 (KJV)

For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ.”

Philippians 1:8 (KJV)

These examples from the New Testament prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christians are not forbidden from making oaths and swearing by the name of God that what they are saying is the truth. If that were the case than Paul sinned in penning the very Word of God in the examples I have shown and we know that can never be the case.

So what this tells is – we need to look a little deeper into what Christ and later his Apostle James were saying about swearing and taking oaths and vows.

Understanding Christ’s prohibition on vows and oaths in their historical context

A good way to understand what Christ was talking about in Matthew 5:33-37 is to look at what he later says in the same Gospel of Matthew:

“16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! 17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. 19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?  20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.

21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. 22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.”

Matthew 23:16-22 (KJV)

What was happening is the Jewish leaders were saying if people swore by one thing – they could not be held to their vow, but by another thing they could be.  They were using things they vowed on as a way of tricking people and getting out of their vows.

So what was Christ telling us about swearing by God’s name and making vows and oaths? He was saying we should never ever knowingly make a false vow.  We should never make an oath or promise knowing we will later try to weasel out of it or break it.  Every oath or vow should be made with the genuine intent to fulfill that vow.

And we should never ever swear use God’s name falsely to say we are telling the truth when we are not.  But if we are telling the truth we may do as the Apostle did and swear by God’s name that we are indeed telling the truth.  So if we are asked in court to swear we are telling the truth, “So help me God” there is no sin in this.

Don’t play the games that the Jewish leaders were allowing people to play and be a man or woman of your word – who keeps your commitments – this is what Christ was saying.

A warning on making hasty and emotional vows

The Scriptures give a great warning about making rash vows, oaths and promises:

“2 Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few. 3 For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool’s voice is known by multitude of words.

4 When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.  5 Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.”

Ecclesiastes 5:2-5 (KJV)

God does not want us to be rash or hasty in making vows, oaths, commitments or promises.  Many good Christians with noble intents and the full intent of fulfilling a vow have made rash and hasty vows based on the emotion of a moment. This behavior is wrong for a Christian.  We should always take the time to pray and consider the consequences of any vow. We should make our vows based on leading of the Holy Spirit, not the leading of our emotions and feelings.

Far too often Christians with noble intentions in the passion of a moment make rash and hasty vows that they should not have made.  While both men and women struggle with this – in my life experience I have seen women struggling with this more than men because they are emotionally driven creatures.

Even in the case of well thought out vows (such as marriage vows), we often invoke emotion into our vows and make parts of our vows completely based on the emotion of the moment.  We do not consider the future or the fact that we are sinful creatures and will not be able to keep some of our emotionally driven vows.  I will speak more on marriage vows in an upcoming article on this subject.

It is a foolish Christian who makes vows hastily and often. A wise Christian rarely makes vows and oaths and when he does so he only does so after careful consideration.

When we make vows we should always be mindful that we do not control the future.  We should make realistic vows that we can keep.

For example, it is realistic to swear in a given moment that we will not lie.  I can swear in court that in that moment my testimony will be the truth before God. But what I cannot do is swear I will never tell a lie for the rest of my life.

It is utterly wrong for a Christian to vow things like “I vow before God to never do [fill in the sin]”. You can’t vow not to sin! You are a sinner and you will be one till the day you die.   But many Christians think if they vow not to do something – then they won’t do it any more for fear of breaking the vow. The problem is you are setting yourself up for failure and only compounding your sin when you make such vows.

It is also foolish to vow things like “I will always do [fill in the blank]”.

The fact is we should avoid terms like “always” or “never” in our promises, vows or oaths.

Instead we should say “I will endeavor (try hard) to not do such and such or to do such and such by God’s power as I submit myself to him”.  This is not absolute promise to do something or not do something, but rather a commitment to try with the Lord’s help to do something.

Making commitments and allegiances is a good thing – as long as it is done with careful consideration of this sinful world we live in and our own sinful natures.


In the Old Testament we see patriarchs like Abraham and others making vows in the name of God. In the Law of Moses God actually commands his people to swear by his name while at the same time warning them not to use his name in vain or swear falsely by his name.

Yes, God can and does change his laws.  There are some Old Testament laws such as the ceremonial and civil laws of Israel that are rescinded in the New Testament.  Some definitions of sin are even expanded such as when Christ spoke on adultery.

But the question is – did God change his law concerning the making of vows in the New Testament?

While at first glance it might appear that Christ took away the ability to make vows based on passages like Matthew 5:33-37 and James 5:12 if we look at the entirety of the New Testament we will find this cannot be the case.  Paul made a vow and kept it as well as he swore that he was telling the truth by the name of God several times.

We know that Scripture never contradicts Scripture so that means we must look deeper into what Christ was saying.  After looking at other parts of the New Testament as well as the history of the time we see that Christ is addressing the abuse of making vows – not vows themselves. He is addressing the false system the Jewish leaders had setup concerning vows that if you swore by certain things your vow did not count.  Christ was saying all vows count and that we should not swear by things on this earth or by heaven itself but only in the name of God as Paul did and only in a truthful manner. Our “yes” should truly mean “yes” and our “no” should truly mean “no”.  We should never ever make a vow knowing there is a good possibility we will break or that we intend to break it.

Also we should not make hasty vows.  This truly does come from the Devil.  Satan wants us to make rash and hasty vows that he knows we will break. Like when we vow not to sin anymore – he knows we will break that vow and he knows it compounds our sin when we do so.

Christians can make vows, oaths and promises.  However vows, oaths and promises should be rare for us and only in the most important of matters.  Our vows should be well thought out and always take into consideration the sinful world we live in – including our own sinful natures.  Also when we make vows we should not be afraid to add in many caveats and disclaimers should circumstances in the future change that make it too difficult or even impossible to keep such vows.

Is it Biblical to seek to earthly pleasure?

Is it wrong to crave and desire a piece of apple pie for the pleasure it brings our taste buds? The Bible tells us to “abstain from fleshly lusts” in I Peter 2:11.  In Colossians 3:2 we are told “Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.” So it would appear to some Christians that God commands Christians to stay away from and not seek after earthly pleasures including seeking after a piece of their favorite apple pie.

This is certainly not the first time I have written on the subject of Christians and earthly pleasures and it won’t be the last.  But in this instance I want to tackle this from a different point of view based on a conversation I had with a young woman who emailed me.   She wanted to share some of her personal insights from studying the book of Ecclesiastes and see what I thought of her interpretation of this great book of the Bible.

She asked to be called “Young and Restless” (and she is in her early 20s).

Below are some excerpts from what she originally sent me:

 “Some people think that the focus or emphasis of Ecclesiastes is to enjoy pleasure. They point to the verses about enjoying the fruit of their labour, as if that is what the central message of Ecclesiastes is:

Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion.

Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God.

 For he shall not much remember the days of his life; because God answereth him in the joy of his heart.  

(Ecclesiastes 5:18-20).

However, this is only part of the story. The book of Ecclesiastes is a book which recounts all of Solomon’s earthly pursuits by which he seeks pleasure. If anyone had it all, it was Solomon. Yet, he calls it all vanity of vanities, all is vanities. Solomon speaks more about his grief and despair than his joy found in earthly pleasures. Yet, some try to emphase the earthly pleasures, which is because they find it hard to accept that all they have on earth is vanity. They are too focused and distracted by earthly pleasures, and that is a problem

All earthly pleasures, whether it be marriage, family, food or wine are fleeting. You better accept this or else you are a fool. The seeking of such pleasures itself will ultimately lead to a lack of fulfillment. When all such things are gone, one will despair. This explains why so many people in old age who cannot enjoy such things are in despair, because they pursued these things, as opposed to the fear of God”

My First response to Young and Restless’s interpretation of Ecclesiastes view of earthly pleasures

I have studied Ecclesiastes many times over the years.  Both from studying the book itself as well as the account of Solomon’s life in other books I would summarize it as this:

Solomon was a man who started off honoring God with his life but quickly was pulled into pursuing the pleasures of this world rather than serving God.  He allowed his heart to be lead astray by heathen wives.  He pursued every physical pleasure both sexual and non-sexual that a man could ever desire.  He had wealth beyond measure.

His discovery at the end of his life was how much his life was wasted and meaningless because he did not make obedience to God and fearing God the central focus of his life.  He made the pursuit of pleasure the central focus of his life – and this is the very definition of sensuality – when one makes the pursuit of physical pleasures the focus of their life.

He abused “the gift of God”.  The ability of a man to labor and enjoy the fruits of his labor with a wife and children by his side are indeed a gift of God as Solomon alludes to in this book.  But this gift can be abused when we make it the central focus of our life rather than serving God with our life.

This is why I always maintain on my site we must always maintain balance in this life.  The Scriptures tell us “Do not turn to the right nor to the left; Turn your foot from evil.” (Proverbs 4:27).

On one side we have the Christian ascetics who taught (and some Christians today still teach) that all pleasures of this world are evil and to be avoided.  On the other side we have those engaged in materialism and sensuality that have made the entire focus of their life earthly pleasures.  The truth is that God gave us pleasures in this world as a gift – but not as something to be the central focus of our lives.  He wants us to serve him and fear him and in serving him and fearing him we may along the way experience some pleasures in this world – but we will also experience hurt and pain.  But we are to follow the Apostle Paul’s example in this regard:

“But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at last you have revived your concern for me; indeed, you were concerned before, but you lacked opportunity. 11 Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. 12 I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need. 13 I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.”

Philippians 4:10-13 (NASB)

Young and Restless’s first response to me

“Thanks for the feedback. I don’t know about you, but you seem to use a more academic approach to studying the Bible. I think that there is a such thing as spiritual revelation that is needed in reading the Bible, and that no matter how many times you study a book in the Bible, there is always more that you can learn.

So, I think there is so much to learn from it than a summary.

‘Balance’ can be a dangerous concept as it can often just another word for compromise on good but hard doctrine, with bad but easy-to-accept doctrine.

If you think I am trying to promote asceticism, no I am not.  I never said that they are to be avoided altogether. Saying that pursuing them for pleasure in themselves and finding contentment in them is not “asceticism”. It is truth.”

My second response to Young and Restless on the subject of earthly pleasures

First and foremost I agree with you that the Bible is a spiritually discerned book – but we must take it as a whole and we must let the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures.  In my life I have far too often seen people claim “spiritual revelation” with absolutely zero Scriptural backing or I have seen those who take one part of the Scriptures that fits their beliefs while leaving out others.  We must take all of it to learn the full truth of any matter.

I would agree with you that the primary emphasis of Ecclesiastes is not to teach us “to enjoy pleasure”.  But I would also humbly submit to you that the primary message of Ecclesiastes is not to tell us that seeking out or enjoying the pleasures of this world are sinful, vain and meaningless as your article states.

The primary focus of the book of Ecclesiastes is that the most important thing in our life – the thing that gives our life meaning when all other things fade away is to fear God and keep his commandments.  Our relationship with God is a never ending source of joy even in the darkest times of life.

Just because somethings last only a short time does not make them of no value

Yes earthly pleasures such as marriage, having children and family, food and wine are fleeting.  They are of this temporary world.  But guess what else is fleeting? Our lives.

 “15 As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth.  16 For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more.”

Psalm 103:15-16 (KJV)

Does this mean our lives are meaningless just because they fleeting? Does this mean our marriages and our children are meaningless just because they are fleeting when compared to eternity? No that is not what these passages teach my friend.   They teach that all these things are meaningless when we make idols of them – when these things become the central focus of our lives and we forget God.  When we no longer remember our creator or fear him.

I can accept that my life and my children’s lives are fleeting like a flower on the ground that withers away and dies.  Amen and Amen.   But is a flower any less special even though it lives such a short time? Is it any less a beautiful and magnificent part of God’s creation? Was the birth of each of my children any less precious because I knew one day they would die? That their life is fleeing? Of course not! This is one of the reasons we as Christians oppose abortion for children who may not live long after birth.  Are the few days or weeks that a sick infant lives not precious because his life is fleeting?

Riches and wealth, and the power to eat of the fruits of our labor, the ability for us to even labor itself and of course marriage and children are the gift of God.  Yet you claim “The seeking of such pleasures itself will ultimately lead to a lack of fulfillment”.  If you had finished your statement with “if we make them the central focus of our lives as opposed to fearing and serving God.” I would agree.  Amen and Amen.

I agree that balance can be used to justify false doctrine – but sometimes it is used to help us from truly going off track as well.  I truly see in the Scriptures two ditches we can fall into.

On the left is slavery to materialism and sensuality where people put the pursuit of worldly pleasures at the center of their life and they forget God and do not serve and worship him.  On the right is asceticism – another ditch we can fall into where we believe we may not experience pleasure in this world or that we may only experience pleasure as a result of others actions toward us – but we may never seek to it out.

Young and Restless’s Summary Statements of her beliefs and our differences

I won’t bother with the entirety of our email chain as it is a bit long and sometimes goes off the topic at hand which is “Is it Biblical to seek to earthly pleasure?”  I will just give two statements from Young and Restless that I believe honestly sum up the differences we have on this issue of earthly pleasures.

“I am not saying that God has created bad gifts, or that they are meaningless and vain. Rather, I am saying that seeking such gifts in and of themselves are. How hard is that to understand? There is a difference between seeking these gifts, and simply humbly, and gratefully enjoying that as God has given to oneself, which you do not seem to understand.”

“I think the problem is that you seem to think that desire for earthly things is legitimate, as long as it is used rightly. However, the problem is the desire for earthly things in and of themselves, is not a desire to delight in God. Rather, it is a desire that is earthly itself. You seem to not even know the difference between desire for something in and of itself, and the desire for it as a means to do the will of God.”

These are the beliefs she has that we can draw from her statements:

  1. We are only to seek pleasure in God and contentment in God and never in any earthly things.
  2. We may not desire earthly things in and of themselves simply for the pleasure they bring us, but only as a means of doing the will of God.
  3. It is not wrong for us to experience the earthly gifts God gives to us such as marriage, sex, children, good food and other things but we cannot seek out these gifts – they must be given to us by God.

Let me practically apply her principles as stated to marriage as an example.

Based on her beliefs it is not wrong for a man to seek marriage to a woman if his only motivating factor is to obey God’s command to be fruitful and multiply and honor God by living out the role of a husband and father while he spiritually leads his wife and future children.   However if any part of his motivation for marriage is his desire to have this woman sexually pleasure him this by definition is sin because he is never to seek out any kind of earthly pleasure for himself. Now if his wife seeks to bless him by giving him sex then he may “simply humbly, and gratefully enjoying that as God has given”.

Now I know based on numerous emails with her that she is not against a man initiating sex with his wife.   But based on these principles she expounded – the only way he could righteously initiate sex with his wife was if his motive was for one of two reasons:

  1. His motivation is completely selfless in that he simply wants to give his wife pleasure. His own desire for physical pleasure with his wife plays no part in his initiating sex because to do so would be him seeking after earthly pleasures instead seeking to delight in God which should be the only thing he seeks after.
  2. His trying to follow God’s command to be fruitful and multiply – so he is initiating sex not out of a desire to for his own pleasure, but to do the will of God by making his wife pregnant.

 The Apple Pie Example

I gave her the following admonition because she often speaks in lofty terms which she does not define in practical ways and then she accuses me of simply not understanding the spiritual truths she is giving me.

I would like you (Young and Restless) to apply your principle here on a practical level.  This is something I try to do on my blog – I give what I believe to be a Biblical principle and then I illustrate it in practical everyday situations.

Let’s say I like apple pie.  And there is a restaurant down the street that makes the best apple pie I have ever had.  I am working late at night (as I often do for my job here at my home office) and I decide to run down the street late at night to get myself a piece of that wonderful apple pie.  I purchase it and savor each bite. I have now met my craving and I am content.  I go home, finish my work and go to bed.

How does my engaging in my craving for a piece of apple pie “serve God”? How does the exercise of me engaging in my craving for a piece of apple pie “worship God”?

I did this for my own enjoyment, for my own pleasure did I not? And why was this particular action of seeking to have a piece of apple pie that I enjoy wrong (if you view it as wrong)?

Young and Restless’s Answer to the Apple pie dilemma

“Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things (Colossians 3:2).

If your manner of spirit in eating a pie is with a mind set on gaining earthly treasure that is wrong.

However, if you do so remembering that it is from God and that is your manner of spirit in savoring it, it is good.

However, so often when people claim that they are delighting in some earthly things to delight in the Lord, they are really seeking to delight in such earthly things in that wrong manner of spirit.”

My response to the Apple pie dilemma

Young and Restless did not answer my questions directly – but simply responded again with lofty terms.  This helps no one. If I have a craving for my favorite apple pie and I go buy it – sit down by myself and eat a slice savoring each bite is that a sin for me? According to her own principles given earlier it is sin because I sought after “an earthly thing” or an “earthly pleasure”.  I sought after something simply to experience the pleasure of it and by her understanding of the Song of Solomon as well as Colossians 3:2 I have just sinned against God in acting in such a selfish manner.

Now if she wanted to say – I should receive the apple pie that I had a craving for and bought and am about to eat with thanksgiving to God I would say Amen!

This is what the Scriptures tell us:

“For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude”

I Timothy 4:4 (NASB)

Guess what that means? Did God create my taste buds? Did God create my ability to crave and savor the taste of apple pie by those taste buds? You bet he did.  And what God created is good.  Everything he created is good! It is absolutely ludicrous and unbiblical to say that God gave us taste buds but does not want us to seek to pleasure them by various foods.

In the same way it is absolutely ludicrous and unbiblical to say that God gave men strong sexual desires for women but they are forbidden from acting on them for their own pleasure.  Just think about it – by Young and Restless’s beliefs God placed a strong desire for sexual pleasure in a man but he is forbidden to seek it out.  He may only experience it as a byproduct of “doing the will of God” by either seeking to give his wife pleasure or impregnating her with a baby.

Young and Restless’s principles are not far from what some of the early church fathers taught about men seeking after sexual pleasure with their wives.  See my Article “How the Church made sex dirty” for more on that.

And even outside of food and sex, men have desires to work and sometimes build businesses and other great things to benefit themselves and their families.  But according to Young and Restless – this is seeking after “earthly treasures”, something that we are forbidden to do in her view.

Young and Restless is teaching a form of Asceticism

Young and Restless denies she is advocating for Asceticism because she does not believe it is wrong for us avoid all earthly pleasures.  She is just saying we are not to seek them out.  If they just so happen to land in our lap then it is ok.  So in my apple pie example – if my wife knows I enjoy apple pie and she goes to that restaurant and buys me my favorite pie and serves it to me at home then there is no sin in me enjoying the pleasure God has dropped in my lap via my wife’s kindness.

But I am forbidden from seeking the pleasure of that apple pie by myself – that is an earthly desire that is seeking after earthly things – that is not delighting in God in Young and Restless’s view.

But there are two parts of Asceticism.  The first is that we should not seek after any earthly pleasure and the second is that we should not allow ourselves to experience any earthly pleasures as either one could tempt us to sin and lead us away from God.  Just because she takes the first part and leaves off the second does not make it any less asceticism.  That is what it is.

Demolishing the two primary tenets of Asceticism with the Word of God

Ascetic Tenet #1 – We are to “abstain from fleshly lusts”

“Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;”

I Peter 2:11

Most Ascetics will argue that his means “We should keep ourselves from experiencing early pleasures otherwise will be pulled away from God”.  Young and Restless would reject this principle of asceticism.  One of the things I love about God’s Word is that in many cases it actually defines what it means by certain words.   These are the lusts of the flesh according to the Bible:

“19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Galatians 5:19-21 (KJV)

Now do you see the human craving for apple pie or just the general desire for sex (not illicit sex) in this list the Apostle Paul just gave? Nope and I don’t either. It really is hard today to find a good balanced church.

On the far left side we have those preachers who never say anything against any sin and they will have members in their church openly living together in fornication and they are ok with this.  Or they may even invite practicing homosexuals to join their church or head their church.

On the far right side we have those who try and teach us that all human desire for earthly pleasure or earthly things is sinful.  These are the extremes we must fight against as Bible believing Christians.

The truth is that in the Scriptures most often the term “the flesh” is being used to speak of the sin nature or corruption of the God given human nature he gave Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.   In no way does the Scripture teach that all human desires for earthly things or earthly pleasures are wrong.  Only when our desire is for things that violate God’s law or when we allow our desire for things that are not sin to replace our love and devotion to God then are our desire becomes sin.

Ascetic Argument #2 – We are not to think on earthly things or love things in this world

Now this is the part of asceticism that Young and Restless fully supports. She gives this well-known passage from Colossians in support of her belief:

“Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.”

Colossians 3:2 (KJV)

Another passage she did not give but I have seen others her camp use to try and support their false ascetic teachings is this one:

“15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.”

1 John 2:15-16 (KJV)

The word “affection” in Colossians 2 is not talking about love.  The modern translation of the Greek word “Phroneo” behind that word is “mind” which is more accurate.  It is saying we are to set our minds, our thoughts on things above and not on things on the earth.  But in 1 John 2:15-16 the Greek word is “Agapao” for love.

First let’s look at Colossians 3:2. If we take this passage by itself and are not looking at its context or how it is used throughout the Bible this would mean that we cannot think about our marriage, our children, our jobs, our car, our dog, our cat, our mom, our dad…you get the point. Now even the ascetic would not like that explanation. They would instead say that “things that are on the earth” or “earthly things” refers to “seeking earthly pleasures or seeking to build up earthly treasures in any form”.  The problem is the text does not give us such a definition. Again as with “fleshly lusts” from I Peter 2:11 we need to let the Bible define itself.  In this same chapter of Colossians we see how the Bible defines “things that are on the earth”:

5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

6 For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: 7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. 8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. 9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;”

Colossians 3:5-9 (KJV)

So what are the “things on the earth” or “upon the earth” or earthly things we should not set our minds on? It is sinful earthly things – not all earthly things.  Again just like “flesh” can be a Biblical euphemism for the sin nature so to can “things on earth” or “earthly”.   Do you see anywhere in this list of that we should not set our minds on marriage, having children or eating apple pie because they are earthly things? The answer is a resounding “No you do not”.

Now what about 1 John 2:15-16? That passage clearly tells us we are to “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world”.  Again the word “world” can speak to the literal earth and all there is in it or to the evil sinful world system similar to how “flesh” and “earth” are used in different ways.  In the Gospel of John we are told:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

John 3:16 (KJV)

The Greek words for “love” and “world” are identical here to 1 John 2:15-16.  So when we use discernment we know that God is commanding us not to love the sinful things of this world – not literally everything in their world including our spouses, children and apples.

But shouldn’t we only seek pleasure in God?

 “As Christians we should never desire earthly things in and of themselves but instead only desire earthly things as a means to do the will of God. We should only desire to delight in God, not in earthly things in and of themselves”

This is a minor rephrasing of Young and Restless’s statement but it still captures the heart of what she said.  And she is not alone.  You will find ascetic Christian teachers on the far right teaching exactly what she has said.  In fact I grew up hearing some preachers like this in Churches I attended.

Is sounds nice doesn’t? It sounds so lofty and so righteous doesn’t it? After all God is the only thing that lasts.  All the things of this world will eventually fade away so why should we have any desire for such temporal things in and of themselves?

It may sound nice but it nothing more than “the commandments and teachings of men” as opposed to the commandments of God.  Paul alludes to this in his attack on asceticism that was creeping into the church while the Apostles still lived:

“20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.”

Colossians 2:20-23 (NASB)

But how does seeking pleasure glorify God?

The question of this article and really a hugely important question in life for all Christians is “Is it Biblical to seek to earthly pleasure?”  Notice the way I framed that question.  I could have said “Is it unbiblical to seek earthly pleasure?” But when I ask is it Biblical – I am asking is right, holy and just for us to seek earthly things and earthly pleasures?

Is it righteous, holy and ultimately glorifying to God when I crave a piece of apple pie?  The answer is yes! And the reason is because I was designed to image God. God experiences pleasure and he design us to as well. When we live out our design we glorify God.  It is God who gave me taste buds and it God who gave me that craving for apple pie.  It is God who sends dopamine rushing through my brain as I eat that pie and God who causes my tastes buds to react in pleasure. All of this is by his hand and his design.  Therefore when I exercise my desire for the pleasure of apple pie and I do so within the bounds of his law and realizing everything comes from him I do in fact bring glory to my creator.

In other words – we actually bring glory to God by seeking out earthly things and earthly pleasures like marriage, sex in marriage and having children in marriage as well as building beautiful things and seeking out wonderful foods. When we do all this within the bounds of his law it honors and glorifies him.

But should we not find all our contentment in God?

Again it sounds nice, it sounds pious to say we should find all our contentment in God. But the truth is we can find contentment in earthly things and earthly pleasures as long as we realize that God is the only thing at will ultimately satisfy our spiritual thirst.   Christ alluded to this:

“And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”

John 6:35 (KJV)

Water or tea or even a piece of apple pie might bring us temporary contentment in the moment.  It will content our physical desire for a time.  But these things will never bring contentment to our spiritual thirst.  This is how people abuse Gods gifts when they look to them as their ultimate source of contentment and fulfillment and not God.

But again there are two extremes we must avoid.  The one is to look for all our contentment in earthly things like food, wine or sex(even in marriage) and the other is to say that God did not give us any of these things even for temporary contentment as we look to him for our ultimate spiritual contentment.

The False Dichotomy of Asceticism

This is one of the favorite verses of Ascetics and it is actually one Young and Restless’s favorite verses as well:

“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”

Matthew 6:24 (KJV)

The Ascetic’s (and Young and Restless’s) second favorite verse is:

“19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: 20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal”

Matthew 6:19-20 (KJV)

“Mammon” is an old word for “money”, “wealth” or “riches”.  So Christ was saying you can’t serve God and Money.  Many Ascetics will take it a step further and say it refers to “earthly things”.  So you can’t love God and love earthly things.  Well we defined “earthly things” from the Scriptures earlier and showed that the Bible condemns sinful earthly things or sinful desires of the flesh – not all human desires and not all earthly things.

In the Ascetic view – we cannot have treasures on earth and treasure in heaven.  We cannot serve God and also seek to make money or have possessions in this world.  We must choose between a simple and uncomfortable life and having God or having material comforts and not having God.

Was Christ saying it was wrong to for a man to earn money or have nice things for himself or his family? Absolutely not.  In fact God says this about riches, money and inheritances:

“A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just.”

Proverbs 13:22 (KJV)

“Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God.”

Ecclesiastes 5:19(KJV)

So what is Christ saying when he says we cannot serve two masters – money (material things, earthly things, riches) and God?

He is talking about where our faith is.  We must trust in God – not in our riches or material possessions.   These passages of Scripture tell us this:

“Lo, this is the man that made not God his strength; but trusted in the abundance of his riches, and strengthened himself in his wickedness.”

Psalm 52:7 (KJV)

“He that trusteth in his riches shall fall; but the righteous shall flourish as a branch.”

Proverbs 11:28 (KJV)

“23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”

Mark 10:23-25 (KJV)

“17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; 18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;”

1 Timothy 6:17-18 (KJV)

So what is the common theme in the Bible about those who have riches and material things? The theme is that we are not trust in riches, we are not trust in our material things but our trust is always to be in God.  We cannot trust in riches and trust God.  We must choose.

Now will there be some times when we have to give up some material comforts and temporal pleasures in the service of God? Absolutely.  Missionaries do this all the time.  Even for those of us who are not missionaries we may give up our material possessions and comforts to help others and that is to be commended. So while we should be willing to part with our material comforts if God calls us to in a certain situation it does not mean all Christians at all times not matter their situation may never seek after material comforts or temporal pleasures or should never have these things.  This is the false dichotomy that asceticism offers us.

You see in a way Satan can use both materialism and asceticism to keep people away from God.  We can be drawn away by our possessions and trust in them rather than trusting in God or we can allow asceticism to keep people away from the faith because they thing that salvation requires them to suppress the natural desires God gave to human beings.  Both keep people away from God and serve as stumbling blocks to a relationship with God.


Young Restless actually framed my belief in this area very accurately when she stated “you seem to think that desire for earthly things is legitimate, as long as it is used rightly”.  And this is the truth of the Scriptures as I have demonstrated throughout this article. This like marriage, having children, eating good food and other earthly things and earthly pleasures like these are God’s gift to us and they are meant to be received with thanksgiving.  God does not tell us we may not seek out these gifts and in fact if we don’t in some cases we would be violating God’s law.

For instance, unless God has convicted our hearts that he has called us to celibacy in service to him we are to pursue marriage in keeping with God’s first command to mankind to be fruitful and multiply.  God also commands men to “drink” (Proverbs 5:15) from sexual well that is their wife whenever they are thirsty and he tells men to satisfy themselves (or literally drink one’s fill) of their wife’s body and be intoxicated by her sexual love.

He tells us that earthly temporal things such as a woman’s breasts and her womb are blessings (Genesis 49:25) to men in this first world.  The Scriptures tell us that God gives us “wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man’s heart” (Psalm 104:15).

The problem with asceticism is that it does not distinguish from the world God loves and the world God hates.

God hates the sinful system of this world that came into being after Adam and Eve sinned in the garden. But he still loves his creation including the birds of the air, animals, reptiles, the mountains, the rivers and chief among his creations mankind.  He still loves the things he created as gifts for man like marriage, sex, children, food and other beautiful things in this world.  When he calls on us to hate the world and the things in the world – he is calling on us to hate the sinful system in this world and not the beautiful things he created.

Can we love temporal earthly pleasures and earthly things and still love God? Can we seek the pleasure of having a spouse and children and a home together and still love God? Can a man “rejoice in his labour” (Ecclesiastes 5:19) or do something that brings him happiness and satisfaction and still love God?

Can a man store up an earthly treasure as an inheritance for his children and still love and serve God?  Can we love and savor the taste of apple pie and seek after it and still love God? The summary of all these questions would be the very question of this article:

Is it Biblical to seek to earthly pleasure?

The answer to all these questions is a resounding “YES!” Absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt we can love all these things and still love God because these earthly things and pleasures are his gift to us.

To say that we cannot is to present a false dichotomy the Scriptures never present.  To say otherwise is to teach asceticism which is not the commandment of God but rather the commandments and teachings of men.

We may absolutely love the things of this world that the Bible calls “the gift of God” to us as long as we are not “lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God” (2 Timothy 3:4) and we do not “trust in uncertain riches” instead of “the living God” (1 Timothy 6:17).

Not only is it allowable and not sin for us to seek out “earthly pleasures, whether it be marriage, family, food or wine” as Young and Restless states but it actually glorifies God when we do because this is part of his design in us.

Is Ethno-Nationalism a Sin against God or by His design?

The sign above was posted in Detroit in 1942 to oppose a new federal housing project being built for African Americans.  Most Christian Americans will agree that slavery was an original sin of America’s founders. But what about the founder’s restriction limiting citizenship to “free white persons” via the Naturalization Act of 1790? Was this a second sin by America’s founders?

The founder’s restriction of American citizenship to “free white persons” is part an ideology called “Ethno-Nationalism”.  Ethno-Nationalists believe that nations are built on three things which are common language, common culture and common ethnicity.

When America was founded the vast majority of its citizens were of British decent (English, Welsh or Scottish) with a minority being from other mostly white northern European nations.  The new American British culture would come to set the tone for America.  Even when a large amount of German immigrants would arrive in the 19th century they quickly assimilated to the American British culture that had been established.

Victor Davis Hanson in his article for the National Review – “America: History’s Exception” writes:

“The history of nations is mostly characterized by ethnic and racial uniformity, not diversity. Most national boundaries reflected linguistic, religious, and ethnic homogeneity. Until the late 20th century, diversity was considered a liability, not a strength…

Countries, ancient and modern, that have tried to unite diverse tribes have usually fared poorly. The Italian Roman Republic lasted about 500 years. In contrast, the multiracial Roman Empire that after the Edict of Caracalla in AD 212 made all its diverse peoples equal citizens endured little more than two (often violent) centuries.” [1]

So ethno-nationalism has been what has knit nations together for the history of mankind.  America even started as an Ethno-nationalist nation.  It was not until after the Civil War that American let go of its ethno-nationalist heritage and began its journey into multiracialism and eventually multiculturalism.  America’s motto “e pluribus unum” or as it translates to English “out of many one” was also transformed.  The founders used this phrase to refer to the 13 colonies becoming one nation.  Multiracialists change it for their purposes to mean that America would be a nation that was centered on multiracialism and multiculturalism.

Most Americans feel America has lost its identity

On March 5th 2017, Matt Sedensky in an article for the Associated Press wrote:

“Add one more to the list of things dividing left and right in this country: We can’t even agree what it means to be an American.

A new survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds Republicans are far more likely to cite a culture grounded in Christian beliefs and the traditions of early European immigrants as essential to U.S. identity.

Democrats are more apt to point to the country’s history of mixing of people from around the globe and a tradition of offering refuge to the persecuted.

While there’s disagreement on what makes up the American identity, 7 in 10 people – regardless of party – say the country is losing that identity…

Patrick Miller, a political science professor at the University of Kansas who studies partisanship and polling, said the results reflect long-standing differences in the U.S. between one camp’s desire for openness and diversity and another’s vision of the country grounded in the white, English-speaking, Protestant traditions of its early settlers.” [2]

Some Christians openly rejoice that America has transformed from its Ethno-nationalist roots into a multiracial multicultural country.  Many Christian’s believe the world needs to unite and leave old divisions of race, ethnic groups and even national boundaries to the dustbin of history.

But other Christians remain silently saddened as they see the America of George Washington slip away.

The Language of Race Discussions

We have gone from one extreme in our societies to another.  In times past, racial and ethnic hatred were common and generally accepted in day to day language.  In the days of America’s founding it was common for whites to degrade and insult Native Americans and Blacks.  In fact, to defend these groups in any way and condemn such hateful speech was rare.

But now over the past several decades in America a new hatred has arisen. The only acceptable discussion of race in America is that Whites should be ashamed of their past treatment of various races and that White privilege and prejudice is still holding back minorities like Blacks, Native Americans and Hispanics. A new oppressed minority are Muslims.  If you were to talk about how Whites still oppress and hold back all these groups and all the evils those of European decent have brought on the world you will be praised.  You will be applauded.  You will be loved.

But any speech about race today that is NOT speaking about White oppression against various races is condemned as racist and evil.  For instance, even to ask the question I did in a previous post – “Is Self-Segregation a Sin in the Bible?” is called racist.  To question government forced integration is to be called evil and racist.  People lose jobs not just because of racial slurs – but even for questioning racial integration and affirmative action policies.

In fact, we are told that race does not really exist and even to consider the possibility that race actually exists is irrational and racist. The debate is closed and may not be discussed.

And finally on this topic of the language of race relations I am going to make something abundantly clear that I made in other previous posts on this discussion of race.

I do NOT support White hate groups like the KKK, Neo Nazis or other White supremacist groups.    In my previous article “We must denounce White, Black, Antifa and Muslim Terrorism” I denounced the actions of the KKK and Neo Nazis from a Christian perspective as not only hateful but actually as forms of domestic terrorism.  I showed in previous posts that there is no allowance in the Christian faith for hating someone because of their racial or ethnic origin.

I put the above statement in red so that no one can try and twist or malign the honest discussion I am about to have about race and ethno-nationalism from a Biblical perspective into saying I support White hate groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis or other such groups.

Denying the reality of race will not end racial hatred or racial atrocities

Even a small child knows that race exists.  When an adopted Black child asks his White adoptive parents “Mommy and Daddy – why do I look so different from you?” he is recognizing what we all know to be true – race exists and it is about far more than skin color differences. The child recognizes the different facial features between himself and his parents.

The difference between races is even more than facial features, hair and skin colors – in other words it is more than skin deep.  While most of the scientific community is trying to erase the concept of races from modern science teachings there is one group of scientists who simply cannot ignore what they see under the skin and they are forensic anthropologists.

“Forensic anthropologists, experts in skeletons that do work for law enforcement agencies, say they are extremely accurate at deciphering the signs that identify a dead person’s bones as African, Caucasian, Asian or American Indian.

“We produce as much accuracy in race as we do with sex and age,” says George W. Gill, a forensic anthropologist at the University of Wyoming and one of the eight anthropologists who are suing the federal government in the Kennewick case.”


Think CSI, Bones and other crime shows on TV.  When they find a body in a burned out building and all they have to go on is the skeleton.  Forensic experts can ascertain with a great degree of certainty whether a person is of Caucasian, African or Asian descent.  And as far as Native Americans go – Native Americans really are just a particular Asian variant.

The fact is there are three major variations of human beings – Caucasians, Africans and Asians.  We can call them “people groups” instead of “race” as some forensic anthropologists want to do.  But the fact cannot be denied that there are three distinct and discernable major variations of human beings.

But the key word is “variation”.  Just because my major variation type, people group or race is Caucasian and yours is African or Asian does not make any of us less human.  It does not give any of us the right to rule over the other.

We don’t have to pretend or try to erase or minimize race from our vocabulary and thought processes to combat racial hatred.

One other word I will use often in this post is “ethnicity”.  Now today in order to go along with trying to wipe out racial distinctions from our vocabularies people are saying “ethnicity” has nothing to do with race but only groups of people with shared traditions and values or perhaps national origin.  The fact is for all of human history ethnicity has been associated with common heredity as well as common traditions and values and national origin.  You cannot erase heredity as a historical component of ethnicity even though we are trying to do that today in nations.

So, when I use the term “ethnicity” I am using it to refer to minor human variation groups.  Northern Europeans could be classified as a minor variation of the major Caucasian variation group.  Englishmen would be a further subset or minor variation group of the Northern European variant group.  Arabs are a West Asian and North African Caucasian variant group. Nigerians would be a minor variation of the major African variant group as compared to Kenyans being another.  Chinese would be a minor variation of the major Asian variant group compared to Filipinos.

So now you will understand what I mean when I say race or ethnicity.

The Christian case against Ethno-Nationalism

Most Christian Americans and for that matter most Christians today around the world believe that ethno-nationalism is the same as racial hatred and the Bible condemns all hatred except hatred of sin:

“Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.”

Proverbs 10:12 (KJV)

So some Christians will stop right there and say the case is closed.  Ethno-nationalism is racial hatred and all hatred except for hatred of sin is condemned in the Bible therefore Ethno-nationalism is a sin against God and Christians should condemn it or so they say.

Some Christians will go a bit further in explaining why Ethno-nationalism is a sin against God and incompatible with the Christian way of life.  The following Bible passages are cited as proof that Christians should be opposed to ethno-nationalism:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Galatians 3:28 (KJV)

“And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;”

Revelation 5:9 (KJV)

“13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:”

Ephesians 2:13-16 (KJV)

So the argument from Christians who believe these passages condemn the practice and ideology of ethno-nationalism goes somewhat like this:

Christ came to save all men regardless of their ethnic background.  But he came not only to save all races and ethnicities – but he came to knock down the boundaries or as Ephesians 2:14 says “the middle wall of partition” between them.  Since Christ made no distinction in his saving of all men from all races and ethnicities then so too we as Christians should erase all racial preferences or distinctions between races in our own personal lives – this is what we are told as Christians we must do.

Some Christians will even argue that the primary reason that Christ gave himself up on the cross was to promote racial diversity and harmony and John Piper is one of those Christians.  John Piper is a nationwide respected Evangelical Pastor and Christian author and I think he represents well the modern Christian arguments against ethno-nationalism.

You won’t find the term “ethno-nationalism” in his book but you will instead find the synonym “ethnocentrism” all over his book “Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian” like this example where he references it:

“This will mean a new global family made up of believers in Christ from every ethnic group on the planet. And it will mean that those who love that vision will work toward local manifestations of that ethnic diver­sity. Jesus is the end of ethnocentrism—globally and locally. Not color but faith in Christ is the mark of the kingdom.”

[4, p. 119]

In the following excerpt, instead of saying Christ came to end ethnocentrism, John Piper frames it differently by saying Christ came to bring ethnic diversity.  In fact, John Piper says Christ literally died on the cross for ethnic diversity when he writes:

“…this aim of ethnic diversity and harmony in the people of God (the one priesthood and kingdom) was pursued by God at infinite cost. The cost of diversity was the blood and life of the Son of God. This is not an overstatement. Consider the wording of Revelation 5:9 very closely: “You were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.” God paid the infinite price of his own Son’s life to obtain a priesthood of believers and a kingdom of fellow rulers from every race and every ethnic group on earth. Think on it. He paid this price particularly. It was for this particular people. He ransomed people “from the nations.” The issue of racial and ethnic diversity and harmony in the church is not small, because the price God paid precisely for it was not small. It was infinite.” [4, p. 141]

John Piper then concludes that it is part of our sacred duty as Christians to pursue racial diversity in all areas of our lives:

“And if it cost the Father and the Son such a price, should we expect that it will cost us nothing? That it will be easy? That the Devil, who hates the glory of God and despises the aims of the cross, will relent without a battle? No. To join God in pursuing racial diversity and racial harmony will be costly. So costly that many simply try for a while and then give up and walk away from the effort to easier things.

But if you love God—if you live to spread a passion for his suprem­acy in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ—you will trust him and seek his help and pursue with your life what cost Jesus his.” [4, p. 142]

As part of his belief that God has called Christians to pursue racial diversity John Piper and his wife adopted an African American girl knowing it would trouble some of his southern relatives.  He also has placed racial diversity as a hiring criterion for all ministries he oversees at his Church because he believes all local churches should do their best to reflect the racial diversity of the world-wide body of Christ.

So that is the total Christian case against Ethno-nationalism in a nutshell.  According to its opponents, Ethno-nationalism comes from a position of racial and ethnic hatred and part of the reason Christ came and died on the cross was to promote racial and ethnic harmony and remove the barriers between races and ethnicities.

In fact some Christians would even go as far as rejecting not only ethno-nationalism – but even nationalism itself. There are many Christians that would build on John Piper’s theology and state that Christ promoted multicultural globalism.   After all we are all “one in Christ” and if we are one there is no place for national boundaries anymore.

The Christian Case for Ethno-nationalism

We have just explored the reasoning by many Christians today for their belief that Ethno-nationalism is a sin against God and that God wants all Christians in every sphere of their life(which would include family, church and society) to promote and implement policies of racial and ethnic diversity.

But now I will present the case that Ethno-nationalism is not a sin against God.  In fact I will show from the Scriptures that God not only allows Ethno-nationalism but in fact he was the architect of it!

I know that may sound shocking to many Christians but that is because of the sad fact that as much as we push education in our modern society – most Christians have never read the entire Bible.  They just read a few portions here and there or they listen to their Pastor or read books by Christian men like John Piper.

Don’t get me wrong.  I think it is great for us to listen to preachers on the radio – I do from time to time.  It is great to go to church each week and here the Gospel and the doctrines of Scripture preached by a Pastor on Sundays.  I have also read many Christian books by many Christian authors. But each of us must study the Scriptures for ourselves as well and remember that no Pastor or teacher (and that includes me) perfectly understands or interprets the Bible.  We are all flawed men and affected by our culture and upbringing.

No culture is perfect. Sometimes cultures and governments actually get things right and enforce God’s laws and policies. Where governments do push godly polices we as Christians should support and promote such polices.

So the question is this – is John Piper and the host of Christians he represents in America and around the world right in siding with our current cultural emphasis on multiracialism and multiculturalism or are Christians like me who side with the ethno-nationalist policies of our founders as well as all nations before the modern times right?

In other words, have nations since the flood acted against God’s will in protecting their racial homogeneity?

With that said here is the case I make from the Scriptures in support of Ethno-nationalism.

The great omission of Christians who oppose ethno-nationalism

The first argument against John Pipers position is found his same book “Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian” where he writes:

“First, that God is the God of the nations means that God created all the nations. More specifically, he created all the people in those nations in his own image. This is not Paul’s explicit focus in Romans 3:29–30, but it is implied in what he says here.

He makes this focus explicit in Acts 17:26: “He made from one man every nation [Greek ethnos] of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.” Notice two things from this text. First, God is the maker of ethnic groups. “God made from one man every nation.” Ethnic groups do not come about by meaningless, random genetic change. They come about by God’s design and purpose. The text says plainly, “God made every ethnos.”

Also, God made all the ethnic groups from one human ancestor. Paul says, “He made from one man every ethnos.” This has a special wallop when you ponder why he chose to say just this to these Athenians on the Areopagus. The Athenians were fond of boasting that they were autochthones, which means that they sprang from their native soil and were not immigrants from some other place or people group.

Paul chooses to confront this ethnic pride head-on. God made all the ethnic groups—Athenians and barbarians—and he made them out of one common stock. So you Athenians are cut from the same cloth as those despised barbarians.” [4, p. 153]

So, what is the argument within his own words against his larger position against ethno-nationalism and for the promotion of racial diversity in societies?

The key is in the passage he cites from Acts 17:26. John Piper makes the same omission that most anti-ethno-nationalist Christians make.  Let’s look at this passage he cites in its entirety:

“24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;”

Acts 17:24-26 (KJV)

The critical phrase he left off (and those who support his position always leave off) is and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation”.

Yes, God made every “ethnos”- every human variation type from one man and that was Adam.  That is an absolute Biblical truth.  But the second Biblical truth found in this same verse is that God also determined the bounds of their habitation.  This is a reference back to a passage in the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy.

“7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. 8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”

Deuteronomy 32:7-8 (KJV)

In Deuteronomy 32 we read about “the days of old” when God “separated the sons of Adam”.   Now you will need to follow the bouncing ball just a couple more times to see the complete truth of the Scriptures.  The event where God “separated the sons of Adam” is a reference to what God did at the tower of Babel as recorded in the book of Genesis.

The Biblical Story of Babel

The Biblical account of the tower of Babel is given to us in the book of Genesis:

“And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. 3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. 4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”

Genesis 11:1-9 (KJV)

Genesis 11 is not the only part of the Bible to speak of what God did at the Babel event.

The book of Deuteronomy gives us more detail on the Babel event:

“7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.

8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”

Deuteronomy 32:7-8 (KJV)

The phrase “the number of the children of Israel” found in Deuteronomy 32:8 refers to this passage of Scripture:

“And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already.”

Exodus 1:5 (KJV)

So Deuteronomy chapter 32 tells us God did not just divide men by language but he also separated them into nations and sent them where the nations originally started across the world and Exodus 1:5 shows us he divided them into 70 groups and then in Genesis chapter 10 we read more detail on the nations and their ancestry.

When did the Babel dispersion event occur?

Bible scholars have debated this for centuries.  The debate centers around a man name Peleg and his life as a reference for when Babel occurred. The Scriptures say this about Peleg:

“And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.”

Genesis 10:25 (KJV)

Arch Bishop Ussher who made his famous chronology based on Biblical events and their given timings in relation to one another placed the Babel event just before Peleg was born because Peleg means “divided”. This would mean roughly only 105 years after the flood the tower of Babel was built and God divided the people.

But if we move closer to Peleg’s death which would still be in his lifetime that would add 235 years to the Babel period. Some scholars believe there would not have been a sufficient population to build the tower as well as fulfill later Biblical events if the division happen only a 100 years after the flood making it much more likely that the Babel event probably occurred around 300 years after the flood.

It is possible if the Babel event happened 300 years after the flood that there could have been anywhere from 500,000 to has high as one million people at Babel when God separated them into nations and sent them on their way to the ends of the earth.  So I would put my guess in the middle and say there might have been 700,000 people at Babel when God divided the nations.

How did God scatter the people at Babel?

Most people think God scattered the people in only one way and that was by language.  The Genesis 11 account does allude to God dividing the people by giving them different languages.  But as we previously have shown from Genesis 10, Deuteronomy 32:7-8 and Acts 17:24-26 not only did God divide the world by language – but he also divided the world into nations.  God is literally the creator of the concept of nations.

So God sent 70 groups of people out and then split them into the various nations inhabiting the world.  If he divided the people evenly we are talking about God sending out 70 groups of 10,000 people to start the first nations of the earth and then each of those groups would have divided once in their new homelands into various family and tribal groups which formed ancient cities and towns.

God divided the world by Ethnic Groups

But God did something even more interesting.  He divided men into major heredity groups (races) both by nations and continents.  Why don’t we find ancient nations in Africa with people who have Asian characteristics?   Why don’t we find people with African characteristics in the Americas before European slave traders brought them? Why don’t we find people with Caucasian characteristics in Asia before modern times?  It is because God “separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people” (Deuteronomy 32:8).

In fact the only area of the world we find any mixture of races at all in ancient times was in the Middle East because it was the cross roads of the known world.

Some Christians would try and argue that the 70 groups of humans that God sent out from Babel all looked the same and that only through isolated breeding over thousands of years did distinctive East Asian, Central Asian, African, European, Australian and Native American characteristics form.   That might sound fine to secularists and evolutionists but I do not buy that as a Bible believing Christian.

I do not buy into Darwin’s evolution of races.  I believe God put in Adam the DNA for every distinctive characteristic of every major and minor human variation type and the Bible tells us that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. I believe Adam carried the human DNA for every skin color variation and every hair, eye, nose and lip variation that would ever be.  And John Piper actually agrees with me on this point when he wrote in the excerpt I quoted above:

“Ethnic groups do not come about by meaningless, random genetic change. They come about by God’s design and purpose. The text says plainly, “God made every ethnos.”

I believe Adam and Eve gave birth to children that had Asian characteristics, Caucasian characteristics and African characteristics. These were the three major human variant types – they did not evolve over thousands of years – but were there from the first men.

God made sure in his divine sovereignty that Noah and his wife would carry the distinctive DNA for all human variation types which most likely means that Noah and his wife as well as their parents were biracial couples which would make his three sons biracial and perhaps their wives were biracial as well.

And no I don’t buy into the theory that Ham was the father of the black race and that God cursed the black race.  So if you think I am saying that please save your breath – I am not. I believe Ham, Shem and Japheth where biracial children who were the product of their biracial parents and grandparents.  Just as the Ark carried every type of animal, bird and reptile so too it carried every human variation type in Noah’s three sons and their wives DNA.

Also I don’t believe Adam was white but rather he was most likely a middle brown of sorts somewhat like a middle easterner.  But whatever he looked like it does not matter because he carried in him the DNA for every human variation that would ever exist.

Where is the proof that God separated nations by Race?

Some people might be screaming at this article right now saying “Ok you have proven that God separated the world by languages and nations but the Bible says nothing about race!”  Well actually it does and John Piper has actually helped me to prove this point with this statement from his excerpt I previously gave:

“He makes this focus explicit in Acts 17:26: “He made from one man every nation [Greek ethnos] of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.” Notice two things from this text. First, God is the maker of ethnic groups.”

The Greek word for nation is ethnos from which we get our word ethnicity. It referred not only to a group of people with shared traditions and values but also with shared blood lines (common heredity). This is why I and others who are being faithful to understanding what nations were before our modern era maintain that one of the critical foundational pieces of nations that God created was common heredity or ethnos.

Acts 17:26 serves not as a defense of the concept of multicultural and multiracial nations, as John Piper and other modern Christians suggest, but rather it serves as a fatal blow to their position and a solid rock to support the idea that God not only approves of ethno-nationalism but he actually invented it!

So yes it is absolutely right to say as John Piper did that God created every human being from one man and he created every ethnicity of man.  Amen and Amen.  But it is also right to say that the same God who created all of us from one man and every ethnicity from one man also separated the sons of that one man by ethnicity into nations.  We cannot affirm the first truth while leaving the second truth out.

Not only does the Bible clearly state that God separated the world by ethnicity into nations but world history proves it.

Why don’t we find large mixtures of races in nations before modern times?   The answer is simple.  It is because as the Scriptures state God created the “ethnos” and “separated” and set “the bounds of their habitation”.

That means the original inhabitants of China were sent their by God. The original inhabitants of the Americas were sent there by God.   The original inhabitants of India were sent there by God. The same goes for Africa, and Europe and Australia.

So up to this point we have established from the Scriptures that it was God who separated the sons of Adam at Babel and determined where they were to go on earth.  He sent 70 different groups of people out from Babel – some not too far Babel and others he would send to the other side of the planet in what would later become known as the Americas.

While the Scriptures don’t specifically describe the racial characteristics of these groups that God scattered we know from history that the major racial types were primarily clustered by continental areas and since the Scriptures tell us God sent them there we can rightly say God divided the world not only by language and nations but also by major and minor racial categories.

But then the question becomes why? Why did God scatter the people at Babel? It appears that before the flood the concept of nations did not really exist.  The world was not divided by language, racial characteristics or national boundaries.  So why after the flood did God divide the world in the ways we have discussed?

Why did God scatter the people at Babel?

There are positive and negative reasons God scattered the people at Babel.  God loves variety.  He ordained that there would be 12 tribes of Israel and 12 disciples.  Each of the Tribes of Israel were unique as each of the 12 Apostles were unique.  He used 4 different men to write the Gospel from four different viewpoints.

Now God could have had every variety of man in one big worldwide order with all the major and minor variations of man that he knew he created all intermarrying and living in one interracial utopia with one culture.  But this was not what he wanted.  He wanted man to fill the earth and to spread across from one side of the planet to the other. He wanted a variety of different languages and ethnicities and nations to form.

But the people at Babel forgot God and forgot his command that he gave to Noah:

“And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

Genesis 9:7 (KJV)

God wanted Noah’s decedents to not only have lots of children but he also wanted them to spread out across the earth and fill the earth. Instead the decedents of Noah turned against God’s command and purposefully sought to keep themselves together.

Often times one sin leads to an even greater sin and this is what happened at Babel.

There is a sinful ideology that absolutely grew like an infectious disease after Noah’s descendants decided to stay together at Babel over several centuries.  That sinful ideology was secular humanism.

Secular humanism is the Spirit of Babel and the Spirit of Babel is secular humanism – they are one and the same. 

And do you know what feeds the Spirit of Babel and causes it grow? When mankind unites in the name of mankind across racial, ethnic and national boundaries under anything except obedience to and the worship of God.

“And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”

Genesis 11:4 (KJV)

The people did not want to make a name for God – they wanted to make a name for mankind.  Listen to this definition of Humanism from which so perfectly fits the people at Babel:

“a variety of ethical theory and practice that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in God.” [5]

In Genesis 11:6 God tells us there would be no limit to what mankind could do if they remained united:

“And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.”

So, God was saying there were no limits to the sin man could commit when the world unites and this is why he wanted men separated by language, culture and race in various places throughout the world.

America played with humanism and brought about the new Babel

The fact is that while many of the founding fathers were godly men they also dabbled in secular humanism as well.  They thought they could “Christianize” humanism.  Humanist philosophy began to grow in America and be influenced more by European thinkers.  Atheism, egalitarianism, multiracialism, feminism and eventually multiculturalism took over until the values of America barely resembled those of her founders.

America started off as a Christian ethno-nationalist nation of northern European decent and in just over century it transformed into a secular humanist multiracial multicultural “melting pot”.  America would go on to be instrumental in bringing the world together to form the new Babel “that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in God.”

Truly the new uniting of the world with America at its center has resulted in evils that would be unimaginable a century ago.  The most powerful human sphere of authority God ever established – that of the husband and father has been almost completely neutered as a result of efforts to appease feminists and meet the demand of a secular society for greater equality for all its members. Infanticide in the form of abortion is the law of the land resulting in the deaths of millions of children each year.

Divorce is rampant and cohabitation is fully accepted. Full acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism is mandated by law. God has been chased out of our schools and secularism is fully entrenched.  Laziness is subsidized through social programs.  Most of the Churches in the western world (including America) have bought into the social Gospel.

Integration schemes are continually tried to force different ethnicities to unite.  Governments seize money from the rich and middle classes in their futile attempt to end poverty in all nations as well as redistribute wealth between different ethnic groups.

The fatal mistake Christian Diversity Advocates make

I am going to quote you a few passages of Scripture that point out a critical truth of the Scriptures that Christian diversity advocates make.

“34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:”

Luke 20:34-35 (KJV)

You might be scratching your head now saying “what does marriage have to do with ethno-nationalism?” It is not marriage that I want you to notice but instead look at two key phrases Christ says here. Those phrases are “this world” and “that world”.

We live in “this world” not “that world”.  Even Christ said his kingdom was not yet of “this world”:

“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”

John 18:36 (KJV)

Now he did say that one day he would come to rule and establish his kingdom here on earth:

“26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.”

Mark 13:26-27 (KJV)

And in the book of Revelation it says that Christ will rule over the nations with a rod of iron:

“13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.”

Revelation 19:13-16 (KJV)

What is my point? The fatal mistake diversity advocates like John Piper and other Christians who attack the concept of ethno-nationalism make is that they think they can bring about “that world” before Christ comes.

Only God himself can cancel his Babel policy that he made for mankind. Only when Christ returns to rule over this earth can the nations of the earth unite without returning to evil spirit of Babel.

Did Christ die to promote racial diversity?

My Bible does not tell me that Christ died to bring “racial diversity” in this world “globally and locally” but rather it tells me “Christ died for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3).

Absolutely it makes no difference what our race, ethnicity, gender or social status is – Christ saves us all just the same.  And praise be to God he has saved and will continue to save men and women from “every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Revelation 5:9).

Christ gave this great commission to his Church:

“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”

Mark 16:15 (KJV)

Christ didn’t say “go promote racial diversity and get rid of ethno-nationalism” he said to go into the world and preach the Gospel. He did not call us to bring about his earthly kingdom – he will do that himself one day.  When I read John Piper’s statements about Christ dying for racial diversity it very much reminded me of when Christian feminists say Christ died to abolish the sin of patriarchy and bring about gender equality.

For now, we are to live in “this world” while looking forward to “that world”.  No Christian should actively seek to work against or cancel out God’s Babel policy in this time and this world.  Only Christ can do that one day when he returns to reign.

How should we as Christians respond to living in the new Babel?

First, we need to realize that we live in this sin cursed world and that ethno-nationalism can create an environment that when unchecked by Christian principles can lead to sinful racial pride, racial hate and bigotry. History shows this time and time again. But do we think God did not know that when he instituted ethno-nationalism at the tower of Babel? Of course, he did.  But he knew an even greater sin of humanism and secularism would occur if men stayed together.  Yes, nations would be sinful on their own – but if all the ethnos of the world united together under anything less that Jesus Christ himself as King it would spell complete rebellion against God. And that is what we see today.

This is another area where John Piper and others get it completely wrong.  Christ was condemning the sinful racial pride, hatred and bigotry of Israel but he was not condemning the policy of ethno-nationalism which he himself established in Israel as he had for all nations at Babel.

So, as we are forced to live in this new Babel we must always be personally checking ourselves against attitudes of sinful racial pride, racial hatred and racial bigotry.  We must also guard against sinful national pride, national hatred and national bigotry.

But I want you to notice a word I always put out in front of pride and that is “sinful”.  Pride is not always sinful in the same way that hate and anger are not always sinful.  Sometimes pride is actually holy and just in the same way that hate and anger can be holy and just.

“Children’s children are the crown of old men; and the glory of children are their fathers.”

Proverbs 17:6 (KJV)

For parents to be proud of their children’s accomplishments if not sinful.  If that pride in their children’s accomplishments leads to them degrading other’s people’s children because they have not had the same accomplishments then it becomes sin.  In the same way, it is not wrong for anyone to glory in the accomplishments of their father or forefathers or even those of their same kindred or ethnicity.

When an American wins at the Olympics it is not wrong for us as Americans to be proud of our fellow American that won.

Some will point to this verse to say Christians should not regard themselves as citizens of any nation whether it be America or any other:

“20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; 21 who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.”

Philippians 3:20-21 (NASB)

But these Christians are making that same error I pointed out earlier of confusing “this world” with “that world”.  We eagerly await the transformation of our bodies into glorified bodies in heaven – but we are not there yet.  For now, we live in this world and we are in fact citizens of whatever nation God has placed us in.

What should our attitude as Christians be toward racial diversity?

There are two extremes on this issue of racial diversity.  One extreme of ages past taught that we as Christians are forbidden from any interaction with people of other races and ethnicities. The Bible does not support such a notion and this passage of Scripture directly contradicts that:

“11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.”

Galatians 2:11-13 (KJV)

We don’t have to be ashamed to associate with people of other ethnicities, especially brothers in Christ.  Churches should not forbid various ethnicities from coming to them. They should be open to all ethnicities because it is not the job of the church to protect its racial homogeneity.

But then we have the other extreme.  While it is not the job of the Church to protect its racial homogeneity, it is also NOT the job of the Church to vigorously promote and encourage racial diversity.

What about parents and their children? Is it a sin for a parent to prefer their child marry someone of their own ethnicity? The answer is no.  We see examples of parents being very protective of making sure their children married within their ethnicity:

“2 And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: 3 And I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell: 4 But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac.”

Genesis 24:2-4 (KJV)

Again, as I said in the previous post – interracial marriage is not a sin in and of itself.  But it is also not a sin for parents to prefer their children marry within their own ethnicity.

And finally, on the subject of national policy.  We as American Christians live in a nation where we can vote and we have a say in government policies and since we as the people have say in the direction our nation goes we must oppose policies that continually run contrary to God’s Babel policy.

What that means is we as Christians should vote against any local, state or federal policies which seek to weaken the nation’s sovereignty and identity and give that sovereignty to the United Nations or other international groups.

We must vote against any local, state or federal policies which seek to strengthen the spirit of Babel in our society by forcing racial and ethnic integration such as bussing schemes and housing schemes.  We as Christians should vote against affirmative action schemes and any legislation which would impose racial diversity quotas on centers of education or businesses.  If we as Christians were ever presented with government proposals to limit immigration by ethnicity as we did before the 1960’s we should support such efforts.

Christians should absolutely support a ban on immigration from all Muslim nations not only to protect ourselves from terrorism but to protect our ethnic and cultural identity.  Christians should oppose building permits for new mosques in their neighborhoods.

It’s not about just about protecting Whites from the attacks of racial diversity pushers in America, it is about working to weaken or stop the spirit of Babel which is so prevalent throughout the world today and trying to return to God’s Babel’s policy where he “separated the sons of Adam”.

I hold no hatred for those who are not of my racial and ethnic kindred and I also hold no illusions about America remaining a majority white nation. I am not angry at Black, Hispanic or Asian Americans.

I am saddened at the behavior of my own kindred – those of British decent, those of northern European decent.  They embraced humanism, egalitarianism, multiracialism and feminism and in the process gave away the nation their ancestors fought and died for.  White men gave up their duty to protect the racial homogeneity of their nation both by engaging in slavery of the African people as well as allowing the slaves to stay after had they had been freed against the wishes of Abraham Lincoln who wanted to send them back to Africa.

White men in America gave up their leadership of their families and this nation when they allowed women to leave the home, pursue their own career interests and have less children.  They again failed to protect their racial homogeneity with the removal of all ethnic limits on immigration in the 1960s.

The spirit of Babel may not be stoppable and it may simply hearken the end of days.  But until Christ returns to establish his kingdom in this world we as Christians have no right to throw out God’s Babel policy nor should we embrace the evil spirit of Babel in our world.


[1] V. Davis, “America: History’s Exception,” National Review, 2017. [Online]. Available:
[2] M. Sedensky, “AP-NORC Poll: Political divide over American identity,” Associated Press, 2017. [Online]. Available:
[3] W. Lawson, “Anthropologists Disagree About Race and Bones,” ABC News, 2000. [Online]. Available:
[4] J. Piper, Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian, Crossway, 2011.
[5] “Humanism,”, [Online]. Available: