Recently, I was in a conversation with someone about whether the Bible was God’s Word, accurate, and inerrant. Deuteronomy 20 was brought up as a problematic passage that shows that the Bible cannot be trusted as enduring and inerrant Word of God because it seems to contain ethically detestable direction. Below is my defense of Deuteronomy 20 as God’s Word and how we are meant to understand and apply it. Paul Copan’s book Is God a Moral Monster: Making Sense of the Old Testament God is a great resource and some of the insights below come from and were influenced by that resource.

Gaining Perspective to Understand Deuteronomy 20

 It seems like the last decade or so, a group known as the New Atheists have taken passages like this out of their historical and literary context and popularized a misunderstanding of them. While these figures may be well versed in other disciplines, they are actually ill-equipped at hermeneutics and their critiques don’t hold up when investigated. However, they were quite loud with their critiques so that their arguments became popular on platforms like TikTok.

If you take passages like Deuteronomy 20 from an anthropocentric perspective (which has been a growing tendency in Western culture as philosophers followed a trajectory of Descartes (continuing especially with Hume and Kant in the seventeenth century and James up through the early twentieth century), you end up missing the main emphasis communicated in these passages and coming out with something that seems morally suspect. But truth comes from God, (rather than our own thinking as with Descartes, our own experience as with Hume, our own intuition and perspective as with Kant, or our own ends as with James). The reason truth comes from God is because God is the Creator of all that exists. He alone knows and sees truth rightly.

Can We Trust the Bible as the Word of God—even Deuteronomy 20?

And as we see even in the structure of how God created—in the interrelatedness of nature (we can see it in ecosystems of nature and even more so in human family and human culture), if interconnectedness and relationality are written on all of creation, it is safe to assume that the Creator of all of this is relational by nature. That this Creator wants to relate with His creation.

Considering this relational aspect of creation and of the Creator, in every human culture, even among those who can’t hear or speak, mankind develops language, whether English, Greek, Hebrew, or sign language, etc. The universality of human language over time and culture causes us to realize that communication through language is written into our makeup. Like we received our relational nature from our Creator who is relational, we also received our communicative abilities from Him too. These lead us to realize that our Creator is not only a being who wants to relate with us, but a being who is able and desiring to communicate with us through language that we can understand. God is relational and God is linguistically communicative.

Now, if our Creator desires a relationship with us and if He communicates clearly through language, we should expect that He would speak to us in a way we would understand clearly, that is through language. And Jesus asserts that God did speak through the prophets of the Old Testament. In Luke 24, He stated “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” In Matthew 5, He said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” In phrases like this the “Law” is used in one of two ways—to refer to the Books of Moses (Gen-Deut) or as an incipit to refer to the whole Old Testament. Here, it is of the whole Old Testament which includes the books of Moses, even the book of Deuteronomy which is where our passage is located.

Jesus goes on to refer to the whole Old Testament authoritatively in Luke 24:44 (the Law of Moses, Prophets, and Psalms was the first century way to refer to the whole OT—Jews still refer to it in this way even today with the word TANAK which stands for (Torah (Law), Nevi’im (prophets), and Ketuvim (writings)) in which these labels are representative of each three sections of the Old Testament.

Jesus also commissioned men to be His special messengers that He called Apostles to speak with His authority on His behalf. So we learn that the Apostles and the Prophets are the foundation of the Church because God’s communication through them comprises the Bible (Eph 2:19-20) so that anyone who is truly a part of God’s household trusts the Bible as the Word of God.  

Now, it is not uncommon for people to make the claim that the Bible contains mistakes, errors, or contradictions. But if one believes that the universe was created by God, this claim about mistakes in the Bible is not a logical claim. If God is powerful enough to Create the cosmos and if He desires a relationship with us and wants to communicate with us in a way that we can understand (as we can see through creation that this would be the case), it would be a very simple and easy thing for Him to keep His communication to us from being corrupted. Even though He used sinful men to write His communication down for us using their own personalities and situations—He nevertheless, could easily prevent it from corruption, error, mistake, and contradiction and cause it to be clear and trustworthy communication from Him to us so that we could relate to Him and know that we are relating to Him rightly because He communicated clearly and accurately.

And if Jesus relied on the Old Testament authoritatively and treated it as the authoritative and truthful Word of God, who are we that we should think we are smarter or wiser than Christ?  And since Christ treated the Old Testament as the authoritative and truthful communication from God, shouldn’t we who would claim to follow Him be humble and give passages that seem hard or harsh or contradictory, the benefit of the doubt? It is as the 19th-20th Century Theologian, B.H. Carroll said after spending his lifetime studying the Bible to try to understand it, “When I was a boy I thought I had found a thousand contradictions in the Bible…I do not see them now; they are not there.  There are perhaps a half dozen in the Bible that I cannot explain satisfactorily to myself…Since I have seen nine hundred and ninety-four out of the thousand coalesce and harmonize like two streams mingling, I am disposed to think that if I had more sense I could harmonize those other six.”

So considering Deuteronomy 20, I ask that you would give God the benefit of the doubt—that maybe the perspective of those who use passages like this to criticize the Bible (or religion in general or biblical Christianity in particular) may not be understanding the passage rightly. I want to suggest that passages like Deuteronomy 20 are often isolated out of their context and in doing so misconstrued to mean something that is not what Moses meant by them as God directed Him to speak and write.

Understanding the Context in which Deuteronomy 20 Is Given

Now, in dealing with the Books of Moses particularly, it is important to keep a few things in mind. First, God’s communication with Israel was given in the context of a covenant relationship. God had saved them from slavery in Egypt through the Passover Lamb. The covenant is that they would be His people (vassal) and He would be their God/King (Suzerain). He would protect them, provide for them, and lead them, but they would trust, obey, and serve Him. They were in servitude to God. So all that is given to them is by the direction of their ultimate authority and not from their own discretion or perspective. They were bound to do exactly what God had directed or they would be in violation of their covenant.

Second, that the 10 commandments are the foundation of all of the Law of Moses. They are paradigmatic which means they create the paradigm or pattern for all the future laws. So what we read, say in Deuteronomy 20, is actually an elaboration/explanation on the parameters of the sixth commandment not to murder. The 10 commandments and all the laws that flow out of them function in at least four ways 1) They teach us about God’s character. They flow out of His nature as rays emanate out of the sun. 2) They teach us right from wrong. 3) They restrain the evil of the human heart from going as far as it would otherwise go (Jesus speaks of the law of divorce this way—cf. Dt. 24 & Mt. 19—and we realize that many laws are given not to condone or hold up a practice as ideal but rather to restrain greater wickedness and protect the vulnerable. When we miss this, we often misinterpret the Law and misunderstand God’s character). 4) To be our tutor, warning us that we don’t measure up to God’s requirements, and therefore leading us to look for a Savior in Jesus (Gal. 4).

Third, when passages, especially those of the books of Moses, are isolated, they can be very easily misunderstood. The other passages that Moses wrote dealing with God’s direction with life and death, marriage, war, slavery, and the people in Canaan are like gutter guards at the bowling alley. Without them, it is easy to go into the gutter of misunderstanding on one particular passage. Which I think is what often happens with Deuteronomy 20.

Biblical Gutter Guards to Prevent Misunderstanding Deuteronomy 20

So, we start with Genesis 1-3. God is the Creator of all life and the judge of all life. He created us both male and female in His image (Gen 1:26-27) so that we bear equal worth (so if you come to a passage and you think it teaches that women are of less value, you have come to a misunderstanding and not the true meaning of the text). It is His breath that He gave to us to animate us (Gen 2:7) which is why all life belongs to God, not to us. We are merely stewards of our own souls as our own souls are in actuality, His breath. He is also the provider who sustains life (Gen 2:16) and the source of ethics—of understanding the difference between right and wrong (Gen 2:17). What is right is that which is in line with God’s character, purposes, and commands and what is wrong is that which transgresses God’s character, purposes, and commands. This is very different from the teleological ethics prominent in our culture—whether it seems to harm others or to do more good than harm (there are many problems with these kinds of current ethics).

Now, as the Creator who gives His breath so that we have life, the provider who sustains life, and the giver of ethics—He is also the judge who determines when He takes back His breath from us so that we die (Gen 2:17). So the lives of every man, woman, child, infant, and fetus are God’s lives—God’s breaths, not the life of that person or of anyone else. This is the first foundation for understanding the sixth commandment and what we read in Deuteronomy 20.

Second, we need to understand that God is a patient and long-suffering God which we see in His dealings with many nations (consider Nineveh in the book of Jonah) but He is also a fair and just judge. He had given these nations that lived in Canaan prolonged time to repent (430 years-Gen 15:16) but they continued to grow in wickedness. Their time for repentance was passed—a determination that only God knows and can make. God revealed to the Israelites the sins that the Canaanites were committing that led to His judgment and the command to war against them in Leviticus 18 which was leading to their coming judgment  (specifically mentioned are the sins of incest, disregard for their wives, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality—all of which flow out of the sixth and seventh commandments) and then God warns Israel since He is just and fair, “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.” He goes on to warn Israel that after He gives them the land, if they do the same things, He will bring the same punishment (which happened later as God called Assyria and Babylon to attack the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel because they too eventually walked in the wickedness of the Canaanites that God had judged through sending Israel into Canaan in the book of Joshua). He continued, “But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgements and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); so that the land will not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you. For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people. Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the LORD your God.” So these nations that God sent Israel to make war on were not innocent nations but they were cultures that had become entirely corrupt. This wasn’t about ethnicity but about morality. The same destruction would come on Israel if they did the same things.

And as God is the Creator, the giver and owner of each breath He has put into each person (our souls), the giver of ethics, and the just Judge, it is entirely up to Him when He takes His breath back from any person whether man, woman, or child. So the judgment was not for future sin they had not committed, but for sins that they had committed in the past and were continuing in the present. But we also have to remember to have a theocentric and not anthropocentric perspective here. God is omniscient. He knows all the sins of a person and a nation—past, present, and future. He knows the sins we would commit if we were in a given circumstance with the opportunity. He knew the sins that the Canaanites would use their lives (His breath in them) to commit if they continued so that He determined to put an end to the entire culture by removing His breath from them (Gen 15:16-He knew it all in advance).  And the judgment on the wicked is also a protection for the righteous which is mentioned in the Deuteronomy 20 passage. This makes sense even in jurisprudence today. That if you have someone who is continuing to sell drugs to kids and a court sends him to jail, the court, through their judgment on the seller, has protected more kids from going down the path of drug abuse, addiction, and eventually of becoming sellers themselves.

Dealing with Deuteronomy 20 Directly

Now, in Deuteronomy 20, you have two kinds of nations that the Israelites were commanded to go to war against. Those who were distant from the Promised Land who would not have as strong an influence on them toward evil because they were not as near (and again, with a theocentric perspective, when God gave direction to Israel, He knew the sins of each nation and whether they were beyond the opportunity for repentance) and those who were in Canaan who were passed the point of repentance and who would be very influential to Israel toward wickedness because of their geographical proximity.

Now, for those who were not in close proximity to the Promised Land, they were to offer the opportunity for a vassal relationship. The nation would become servants of Israel. This was a very common thing in the Ancient Near East. But what was not common was the peaceful restraint of the Israelites that God had commanded here. Many nations around Israel at this time did not show this restraint. If the city accepted this offer, even the fighting men were to be spared. This was a great restraint in this historical context. Again, the Law is meant to restrain wickedness.

Now addressing the servitude, if you think of it with reference to antebellum slavery, you will misunderstand the nature of it. Servitude is a better word to describe it because slavery brings incorrect connotations to the American mind in understanding this ancient concept. This was not chattel slavery. The idea of forced servitude was used for those conscripted into service, even of Israelites, into civil service by their own government later in OT Israel. It’s somewhat like the idea of being drafted into the military or of being called on for jury duty. It was a tributary service toward a Suzerain Kingdom. Even the Israelites willingly entered a similar kind of servitude and God made laws for it. It was not an ideal situation, but for the Israelites especially, it was meant to prevent poverty. A person could sell himself into servitude just as Jacob did to gain the right to marry Laban’s daughter. But even in this servitude, wealth could be acquired to pay off the debt and come out of servitude.

But servitude, whether through paying off a debt or through being defeated in war was often seen as preferable to living in poverty or going to war at all. Again, this was not like antebellum chattel slavery. And God had commanded Israel several times to treat foreigners (and the poor) well (Lev 19:33-34; also Boaz’s treatment of the foreigner Ruth is an excellent example). In fact, the Gibeonites sought this kind of servitude to Israel by tricking Israel into taking them on as servants in Joshua 9 as this was by far preferable in many cases as to going to war or being destitute in the aftermath of war.

Now, what if the leaders of the city or nation did not agree to these terms? The men, having fought against Israel, were put to death but the women and children were spared and allowed to go into this kind of servitude because they were innocent of the decision that was made by the men of the city to fight. This provided for the women and children of that nation because without the men, they would have struggled to survive. But this was in no way sex slavery—that’s placing an idea on the text that is not there. The Israelites were not given an exception for rape here (though the nations around them would commonly do such terrible things after defeating another nation in war). Remember the foundation in Genesis 1-2 and the foundation of the Law in the 10 commandments. Within the creation of marriage and the seventh commandment not to commit adultery flows all of the other sexual ethics in the books of Moses and the whole Bible. Rape is included in the prohibition against adultery in the seventh commandment. If one of the men desired to marry one of the women from a conquered nation, he had to do so in a very particular and restrained way as we see in the very next chapter—giving her time to mourn the death of parents and not treating her like a prostitute or a slave (again, we have a law about divorce to restrain the wicked hard human heart from doing greater evil  than it would without the Law to restrain it–this was a protection for her from the sinfulness of an Israelite man who was being unfaithful).

Total Destruction of the Canaanites?

Now, concerning those seven nations in Canaan that are mentioned, God pronounces judgment on them in a total ban called haharem which means the dedication (to the LORD) for destruction. When you consider other passages about this special command of God, you realize that it includes two options for the inhabitants in the land—they could try to fight and be destroyed or they could be driven out and continue to live but the main emphasis is on the destruction of a culture and the religion that is attached to it within the Promised Land so that the Israelites would not make covenants with or intermarry with those who would lead them astray (Exodus 23 & 34; Number 33).

And the warfare language used in the ban seems to be common idiomatic language of the Ancient Near East especially in this time period’s warfare language (again, Paul Copan is helpful in showing this in Is God a Moral Monster: Making Sense of the Old Testament God). And we have to remember that the goal of Bible interpretation is to understand the meaning and intent of the original author—not to force the text to mean something that it didn’t mean in its own time period. If I’m in a large crowd of people and I say, “I’m so hungry, I could eat a horse,” everyone in the crowd knows that I actually can’t eat a horse, nor would I want to (unless English is not their first language and they are from another culture outside the United States). But no one is going to force my hyperbolic language into a box and say, “This guy actually thinks he could eat a whole horse!” They know I don’t mean that. It’s not inaccurate language but it also isn’t literal language.

Now, phrases like “utterly destroy,” “shall not leave alive anything that breathes,” and “both man and  woman, young and old,” do not prohibit the inhabitants from being driven out and living, or repenting and becoming part of Israel. The gist is that the culture is to be ended because of its wickedness, and unlike the cities outside of Canaan in the first part of the Deuteronomy 20 passage, the Israelites weren’t to allow them to remain or to go into servitude because they would lead Israel astray. The inclusive language “utterly,” “anything,” “both man and woman, young and old,” seems to be idiomatic for a decisive victory/defeat. There seem to be a number of examples (both in and outside of the Bible) used of it in this time period which show it is very likely idiomatic and hyperbolic. While it is many centuries later, you can still see this idiomatic use of inclusive warfare language for a decisive victory/defeat when Jesus speaks of the future destruction of the Temple in Matthew 24 (which happened in AD 70). He said, “not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.” I think it would be pressing Jesus’ language far beyond what He and His disciples knew He meant to say, “Well, when the Temple fell, one stone landed on another and stayed there, that means Jesus was wrong.” That would be misunderstanding Jesus’ communication and pressing it beyond what He, His original hearers and Matthew and his original readers knew was meant by the phrase. There are very sound principles that you can study to know when biblical language is commissive  (used metaphorically in some way or another) or  referentially (used literally) but to be fair, idioms are almost always the hardest to discern because we are far removed from the situation by time, culture, and language. But idioms are hard for anyone learning a new language even today.

Precedent for Future Situations?

Now again, this was a special command to Israel from God as a nation. God is the judge of all the earth and the owner of His breath (our souls) in each person. He is also the judge of each person and nation. It is for Him to determine when a person’s life or a nation’s existence ends. He can choose how to do so. This command was not to an individual, but to a special nation called by God. God has given governing authorities over nations to punish wickedness (Rom 13), and Israel had special communication with God that no other nation can have. They were a nation who was in contact with God through His chosen prophet Moses. The nation had seen God’s miraculous power in the plagues at Egypt, His protection and guidance in the pillar of cloud and fire, and had crossed the Red Sea that God parted, heard God’s voice in thunder, lighting, smoke, and earthquake at Mt. Sinai, experienced God’s provision of manna, quail, and water from the rock. There was certainty that this was God speaking to them as a nation.

And the canon of Scripture is closed (Rev 22). God will not speak like this anymore until Christ returns. If a person today says that God spoke to him about anything, I hold him suspect as I think we should. The prophets and Apostles have died and are in the presence of the Lord. No more prophets are given (Heb 1) and no one else can become qualified to be an Apostle (Acts 1). No one can function like them anymore to speak authoritatively on God’s behalf outside of proclaiming exactly what Scripture proclaims. So if someone says, “God told me to go to war with nation X” or “God told me to put to death person Y,” I’m going to say, “No, He hasn’t.”

Is It Just for God to Take Life?

But Israel’s situation and certainty was much different than any of these misled people in our day. And God chooses to take back His breath that He has given to people in many ways—whether through old age, wreck, tornado, war, cancer or some other disease, etc. Some of these things happen just as a result of living in a broken, sin-fallen world and some happen because of the sinfulness of others, but sometimes, God chooses to take back His breath from someone or some people particularly because of their refusal to repent. We see it with Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5. The Apostles John and Paul even warn us that this can happen to Christians who walk in unrepentant sin against God (in 1 John and in 1 Cor). Sometimes, we don’t know why God takes back His breath from a person when He does—but our souls are His breath and it is His decision and by His providence on when and how to take it back.

Now, as I mentioned before, God tells us repetitively in Ezekiel that He would rather someone repent and be saved than continue in what He calls wickedness and be destroyed. But if they do not repent, they will be condemned. So even of those seven nations of Canaan which were under the total ban of Deuteronomy 20, if individuals repented of rebellion against God and His people, they and their families could actually become part of Israel rather than being destroyed. For instance, this is what happens with Rahab and her family (Joshua 6). She repented from the rebellion of her people against God and she and her family were saved from destruction and became part of the people of God (and part of the genealogical line of Jesus-Matthew 1!)

So again, with a theocentric view in mind, God desires for people to be saved and not destroyed, but He will only save on His terms—there must be repentance of what He has determined as wicked. He desires the salvation of people, like the Canaanites, so much that He sent His Son to take the penalty of sin for wicked people—but faith in Jesus and repentance cannot be separated. To be saved from God’s judgement, there must be a turning away from sin. While God is long suffering, He will eventually condemn those who refuse to repent. All life belongs to Him and it is His right to say when it can be taken and when He allows it to be retained. He was directing and speaking to Israel in a very particular way in this section of the Old Testament so that such directions for them are not repeated today. No nation is a fully “Christian Nation” like OT Israel was God’s people. We do and are meant to learn ethical principles, even for just warfare in passages like Deut 20 (2 Tim 3:16-17) as God tells us in both Testaments that He does not change, but no one can say “God is speaking to me directly as He spoke to the Israelites through Moses to go and make war on nation X or nation Y.” We have the Law of the Lord that has been given and God uses it to teach us about Himself, and about right and wrong, to restrain evil, and to lead us to Christ. But no new Word from the Lord is coming apart from the Bible.

Summing It Up

Deuteronomy 20 is not treating life and humanity flippantly, but it is actually the opposite of what many try to twist this passage to say. Deuteronomy 20 teaches us to value human life and to value righteousness and flee from wickedness, and to show restraint, and to desire repentance rather than destruction, to offer grace as we are able, but never accepting unrepentant sinfulness, and above all, to trust God’s Word so that we seek to obey it for God will eventually judge and condemn.

The issue of transgenderism and those issues which circle its orbit evoke sharp emotions and create vast divisions in the present day. These issues were in the extreme periphery of the American mind a very short time ago and the majority of Americans felt clarity and consensus over these matters. However, more recently, the United States has been in great turmoil over transgenderism. But closer to home for most readers, families have been ripped apart by a cloud of confusion that has blown in from an extreme individualistic secularism which sees truth, at its core, located in the mind of the individual rather than as an objective reality.

However, God is not a God of confusion and He is a God of love. Christians must be ready to fill a prophetic role as salt and light to the country and to our families, speaking the truth in love. It was from His truth and love that God provided His Word, the Bible. In this way, though we have offended God’s holiness by sin, God extended grace by providing this clarity from the Bible. And genuine love and grace calls us to provide God’s clarity to the confusion of our present age. Love never promotes confusion but provides truth with a genuine desire to bring about good (as defined by God) to the life of those who are the object of that love.

So how can Christians respond with truth and love to those who advocate that transgenderism is morally neutral, or in some cases, to be encouraged as a moral good? How should we respond when others attempt to co-opt the Bible to support transgenderism? We want to have a gentle and compassionate demeanor but offer God’s clear answers with confidence in His character and Word.

The arguments below were put forth in the wilds of social media. Most of the arguments advocating for transgenderism seem likely to be AI-generated responses but nevertheless, they are sincerely believed by many in our culture today. Biblical Christianity has an unchanging witness regarding issues relating to transgenderism and has provided tried and true answers for over two millennia. Normally, I would not engage in or encourage others to engage in these kinds of debates on social media platforms, but this particular engagement had special circumstances which I am not at liberty to share fully but I can say that it provided a unique opportunity. I’ve addressed these arguments in hopes of showing the explanatory power of the Christian worldview and for their value in practicing apologetics in regard to the question of transgenderism; a question which today’s Christians must think through carefully, “being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence” (1 Pt 3:15) and to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3).

The arguments for transgenderism came in response to my comment on a local news station’s post on the current administration’s executive order curtailing gender transitions for those under the age of 19. I responded to the initial argument on the post thread but when a drawn out rebuttal was shared, I decided to respond here due to the space and time it would take to provide an answer in good faith. My responses will be in a normal font and the one’s put forth advocating for transgenderism will be in italicized font.

---

So thankful to hear this news today! These transitions promise peace but only bring suffering, more confusion, and greater inner turmoil.

Research has shown many times that regret is low and psych outcomes are improved. A search of peer reviewed science research by experts can be done to see this on NIH pubmed. You have a limited and biased perspective on the lives of transgender people.

I want to suggest that my perspective is not as limited or as biased as you likely think. It is a perspective that is often neglected by proponents of transgenderism because it is a spiritual one. It is actually a much broader perspective than that of the subjective therapeutic view that is solely concerned with social functioning and self-realization or the more narrow view of empiricism which neglects the soul altogether. This spiritual perspective takes into consideration therapeutic concerns and considers empirical data but is grounded in and guarded by divine revelation.

My work is to shepherd people’s souls, guiding them in how to come into a relationship with God and how to follow Him so they experience the blessed life and the blessed afterlife. The genuine work of soul care is neglected by our secular culture and the only foundation of that work, divine revelation, is either ignored or mishandled by overlaying contemporary ideas onto it by those with views rooted in secularism, the therapeutic revolution, or empiricism. But shepherding souls toward God cannot happen without warning them of the danger of sin. Sin separates people from God and results in spiritual, physical, and eternal death. One can only come into relationship with God by rejecting sin and surrendering to Jesus as Lord (that is life-leader) in faith.

God has made it clear in His Word that trying to deceive or reject the sex (male or female) He has given a person and the gender that corresponds to that sex (masculine for male and feminine for female) is a grave sin. Sin always promises happiness or fulfillment (it’s very concerning that Harry Benjamin, the endocrinologist and leading proponent who pioneered sexual transitions, in his seminal work on transgenderism, spoke of sex-reassignment surgeries in religious terms, calling it “salvation” for those with gender dysphoria). But sin always leads to further suffering and it brings God’s condemnation. One cannot continue in sin and be in relationship with God. Jesus said “repent and believe the gospel” (Mk 1:15). In believing the gospel, one must turn away from sin. That doesn’t mean a person must be entirely sinless from that point on but that he or she agrees with God that sin is wicked and he or she seeks to flee from it. Paul warned us against thinking we can continue to reject God’s ways in sin and be in relationship with God. He said, “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.” (Galatians‬ ‭6‬:‭7‬-‭8‬).

Sin brings a heaviness and uneasiness on the soul which is actually a warning (Psalm 32) like pain often is to the body. The heaviness of guilt and shame tell the soul it is being harmed. This, I think, is what drives the LGBTQ community to strive so hard to seek the affirmation of the broader culture, but such affirmation can never bring peace to the soul. And the great danger of ignoring guilt and shame is that our consciences will eventually become seared as we continually “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” by denying what God has made evident to us and when we do so, God eventually gives us over to the lusts of our hearts and we exchange what is good for what is harmful and wicked and incur God’s righteous wrath (Romans 1:18-32). This explains why, for a time, “regret may be low and psych outcomes increase.” But even when this is the case, the transsexual person’s relationship to God is not considered seriously. For the person with gender dysphoria, the transgender person, or the transexual, salvation and peace cannot come from denying what God has made evident and from suppressing the truth. Peace cannot come from changes to the body made by human hands, but by a change in the soul that guides everything a person does with his or her body. Jesus gave His body to be broken and was raised bodily so that the person with gender dysphoria could find peace in the body He gave them without seeking to change or reject it.

A life-surrendering faith in Jesus as Lord, trusts that God did not make a mistake when He ordained whether a person would be male or female and grows to celebrate that sex by expressing the gender that corresponds to it. Lasting peace only comes through that kind of life-surrendering faith in Jesus as both Lord and Savior. The harm is that practicing transgenderism and transsexualism and encouraging the practice of them is a clear rejection of God’s offer of peace, reconciliation, and salvation. The truth of this harm which God has been clear about is ignored, minimized, or twisted by those who encourage transgenderism and transsexualism. But my work and the perspective necessary to do it faithfully must consider that harm and how a person must avoid it.

The position you’re advocating is grounded in a religious framework that treats transgenderism and gender dysphoria through the lens of divine revelation, with a strong emphasis on biblical teachings regarding sin, repentance, and salvation. Your argument suggests that gender transition, and by extension, transgenderism, is a rejection of God’s intended design and therefore inherently harmful to the soul. You assert that this harm is spiritual in nature, rooted in a denial of God’s creation, and that true peace can only come from a relationship with God, rejecting any changes to one’s gender or sex.
However, there are a few important aspects where theology and science can be engaged to present a broader perspective on this issue.

Theological Considerations:
Creation and Diversity: You reference the idea that God created human beings with specific gender roles and identities. While this is a common theological perspective, there is room in theological traditions to interpret human diversity—whether in terms of gender, sexuality, or other attributes—as part of God’s good creation. Many argue that the concept of “imago Dei” (being made in God’s image) doesn’t solely define identity by gender or sex but by our relationship to God. This allows for the possibility that some people may experience their gender identity differently from their biological sex, without necessarily implying a rejection of God’s will.

(On Creation and Diversity) It is true that my perspective is rooted in divine revelation. Just as with science, the disciplines of hermeneutics and theology can be practiced wrongly. So one must be careful to interpret the human diversity of creation rightly. Jesus’ Apostle Peter said, “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pt 1:20-21). Since God is the Creator of human diversity, it is His place to define and explain it for us. Our role in interpretation is not to overlay our meaning onto Scripture, but to seek to understand the truth given by it—that is, the absolute reality that God expressed in it through the intention of the biblical author. God is transcendent, but He is also imminent so He graciously condescended to us when He gave us Scripture, communicating to us in a way that we can understand. The diversity that is present in creation is a complimentary diversity. Sex and gender are a precious gifts from God so that men and women may compliment each other in a way that brings God glory, particularly in creating new image-bearers within marriage. God clearly defined the limits of the diversity of human gender through Moses when He said, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth…(Gn 1:27-28). The imago Dei is a significant doctrine with far reaching implications and applications that go far beyond the discussion of human sexuality and gender, but rightly practiced hermeneutics and theology will not allow for an interpretation that says humans can transition from one gender to another.

Christ’s Compassion and Inclusivity: Jesus’ ministry was characterized by reaching out to marginalized and oppressed groups, often challenging prevailing cultural norms. For many, this model of compassion and inclusivity is a key guiding principle when considering how to engage with people who experience gender dysphoria or identify as transgender. Jesus offered healing and affirmation of humanity, focusing on the heart and soul rather than rigid adherence to societal gender norms. Therefore, some theologians argue that pastoral care for transgender individuals should be one of empathy, love, and the recognition of their inherent worth as children of God.

(On “Christ’s Compassion and Inclusivity”) As I mentioned, proper hermeneutics does not seek to overlay a paradigm onto Scripture but instead seeks the truth God communicated through the biblical author’s intent. The terms of this paragraph betray a post-modern paradigm. The gospel of Christ is not one about “reaching out to marginalized and oppressed groups,” or “challenging prevailing cultural norms,” or “inclusivity,” or “affirmation of humanity.” Jesus did indeed come to show compassion through offering reconciliation to God—but it is a reconciliation on His terms, not on ours. Not everyone is a child of God and not everyone will make it to heaven. Jesus warned severely, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter” (Mt 7:21). One can only be born again as a child of God and that new birth is one that includes repentance of sin and results in obedience to God’s Word and God’s ways (Ez 36:27). Anyone offering spiritual “care” that affirms a person in sin, is not pastoral care as it does not offer healing but spiritual and eternal harm. Jesus’ Apostle Paul warned, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:9-11). The terms “effeminate” (μαλακοὶ) and “homosexuals” (ἀρσενοκοῖται) deal with issues of sexuality and gender. The effeminate are men who take on the sexual role of a woman while the term homosexual addresses men who express their sexual energies toward other men. Both of these are classified as “the unrighteous” who will “not inherit the kingdom of God.” But notice that Paul tells the Corinthians that they are no longer in the group of the “unrighteous” because they trusted in Jesus in such a way that they were changed and justified—that is they repented or turned from the sins of wrongly expressing their sex and gender and turned to Christ in such a way that they are now in line with God’s design for their sex and gender. Affirming transgenderism is not pastoral care—it is a form of pastoral malpractice that leads people to an eternity of suffering in Hell.

Scientific and Psychological Insights:
Gender Dysphoria as a Medical Condition: From a scientific standpoint, gender dysphoria is recognized as a psychological condition characterized by a disconnect between an individual’s gender identity and their assigned sex at birth. This condition is not a matter of spiritual rebellion, but of real psychological distress that affects many people. Research has shown that medical treatments, including hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgeries, can significantly improve the mental health and well-being of transgender individuals by aligning their physical bodies with their gender identity.

(On “Gender Dysphoria as a Medical Condition) Gender Dysphoria is a real psychological phenomenon but it does not follow that it therefore “is not a matter of spiritual rebellion.” There are many issues of psychology that have their root in the condition of the soul and its relation to God. Guilt, anxiety, fears, depression, obsessions, intrusive thinking, self-loathing, self-harm, suicidal ideations, delusions, hallucinations, and many other phycological conditions are rooted in the soul’s condition. In many cases (but not all), addressing them medically is addressing the symptoms and not the root cause, which is often a deep-seated denial of truth. The Bible addresses all of these, including gender dysphoria. The church has spoken clearly about these issues for 2000 years, including gender dysphoria. True pastoral care has always guided people in these matters of the soul—long before psychiatrists and therapists entered the landscape. Freud envisioned a culture that replaced pastoral care with lay therapists (see the language he uses in Lay Analysis). And I think that the current consensus is that mental health in America is in crisis and at an all-time low even though we are a hyper-therapeutic culture. One of my concerns with the DSM5-TR (and the other versions of the DSM before it, transgressing more in each version than the one before) is that it takes issues that the Bible clearly defines as sin and labels them in a way that is void of morality—or of the concepts of holiness and wickedness and labels them in such ways that they are contradictory of how the Bible labels them. Before the work of Harry Benjamin, the psychological & medical consensus for one with gender dysphoria was to help him realign his thinking and identity with reality. It is morally and logically shocking that in a very short amount of time, consensus has changed in the United States (Great Britain was ahead of us in pushing gender transition and now has realized the harm and liability of such medical malpractice and has back-pedaled for the last few years), so that harming a healthy, well-functioning body in order to bring a perception of wellness and wholeness is seen as medical or psychological care (or worse, soul care). In short, gender transition is allowing a psychological construct rooted in delusion to deny biological ontology—I’m not sure how this can, in any meaningful way, pass as science, biology, or medical care.

The Role of Empathy and Understanding in Mental Health: Modern psychological and psychiatric organizations, including the American Psychological Association and the World Health Organization, support approaches that affirm individuals’ gender identity as crucial for mental health. The therapeutic model they use doesn’t ignore spiritual concerns but takes a holistic view of human well-being, considering emotional, psychological, social, and spiritual health. For many transgender individuals, finding acceptance in their gender identity—whether through societal recognition or personal affirmation—is a key aspect of their well-being. Dismissing these needs could contribute to worsening mental health outcomes, including higher rates of depression and suicide.

(On “The Role of Empathy and Understanding in Mental Health”): First, I think that it is important to recognize the authority of the professions. As I mentioned above, pastors are professionals in dealing with the soul and they have a long history of practicing that profession as it deals with what has very recently been termed “mental health” today. In many cases, therapists and psychiatrists are overstepping their realm of authority. What qualifications do they have to address matters of special revelation, the transcendent, the soul, and the eternal? When they speak of spiritual needs, they step far out of their realm of authority as professionals. Second, I think it is important to recognize priorities. The eternal outcomes of a soul are far more important than “mental health outcomes.” There are times, when addressing a person’s eternal state does bring temporary mental and emotional hardship. That is not necessarily bad. Just as a difficult medical intervention like chemotherapy is often necessary to cure cancer. Guilt and shame must be realized in order for the soul to find its cure in the gospel of Jesus. Just as a physician warns a patient about the dire consequences of denying proper care to cure cancer, true pastoral care presses on people their transgressions against God so they might come to have their eternal and spiritual state cured. Affirmation of sin brings disaster to the soul, not healing. It is difficult for a person to realize that he is a sinner who stands condemned before a righteous God. But the gospel calls him to humble himself before God, acknowledge the wickedness of his sins, and turn from them. The mental and emotional burden are then removed, but they are necessary first for the person to be made well and whole for eternity.

The Spiritual and Human Dilemma:
The Concept of Sin and Redemption: You argue that embracing transgender identity is sinful and ultimately separates individuals from God. However, many Christians believe in the power of grace, redemption, and transformation through Christ. From this perspective, it’s possible for someone to experience gender dysphoria, seek affirmation in their true gender identity, and still maintain a meaningful relationship with God. While some theologians would still hold that God’s design for gender is binary, others point to the idea that our experiences of suffering, confusion, and distress may be part of a larger narrative of healing and transformation within God’s grace.

(On “The Concept of Sin and Redemption”) As I believe all of these concerns have already been addressed, I will just reiterate that this is not how hermeneutics and theology are rightly done. It does not matter what “many Christians” believe, God is the One who defines sin and He has communicated to us in a way we can understand in His Word (2 Pt 1:20-22). Our role in the process is not to overlay our concepts on the Bible but to search out the original author’s intent as he was guided by the Holy Spirit. Afterall, we would know very little about Jesus’ life, teaching, and ministry if His Apostles, whom He called, had not written it down as they were guided by the Holy Spirit. Jesus believed the Old Testament to be the authoritative Word of God and in it God has warned against embracing gender roles of the opposite gender. He said, “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God” (Dt 22:5). God has defined confusing and deceiving about one’s biological sex as “an abomination” to Him and God is immutable (James 1:27).

Sexuality and Identity as a Complex Human Experience: Beyond biological sex, human identity and expression are deeply complex. Gender is not purely biological, as it also includes social, cultural, and personal dimensions. This complexity is reflected in both secular and religious discussions about the nature of gender. If human beings are indeed made in the image of a Creator, it might be that God’s creation is more diverse and multifaceted than we understand in our finite perspectives.

(On “Sexuality and Identity as a Complex Human Experience”) I agree with most of the first part of the statement above. Gender is biological, social, cultural, and personal. However, it is primarily spiritual. This complexity does not allow a person to disregard what God has revealed about the boundaries of sexuality and gender, as He is the Creator of sex and gender and is the Judge of them too. He declared the boundaries of biological sex in Genesis 1:27, “male and female He created them.” The New Testament affirms this distinction and does not add any third category or shifting scale. The entirety of the Bible is consistent that gender (masculinity and femininity) is intrinsically and ethically tied to biological sex (male and female). One of the most explicit statements comes from 1 Timothy 2:15, “But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” The word saved (σῴζω) is not used in the typical technical sense of eschatological salvation here but in the sense of spiritual protection and should be translated “she will be kept spiritually safe,” meaning safe from the dangers of sin, temptation, spiritual harm, and apostacy. But how will she be kept spiritually safe? “[T]hrough childbearing,” which is rightly translated as “maternity,” a distinctly feminine expression of the female sex which Paul tied to other feminine virtues in this passage. Paul is using a literary device known as synecdoche in which one activity (childbearing) is used as a representative of a whole group of activities (godly feminine virtues and roles). Paul is saying that women who take on the God-given role of womanhood, as genuine Christians displaying the Christian virtues, will protect themselves from the spiritual dangers of sin, temptation, and apostacy. The imago Dei does not allow for any more diversity in sex and gender than males who are to display masculinity and females who are to display femininity.

The Harm Argument:
The Potential for Harm in Rejection: A significant part of your concern is that endorsing or engaging in transgender practices leads to harm. However, there is compelling evidence that the harm often comes from rejection, social ostracism, and lack of support. Transgender people who face acceptance and understanding—both from their faith communities and society—are less likely to experience depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts. The psychological distress often cited in transgender studies is significantly lower among those who receive gender-affirming care and live in supportive environments. This suggests that the harm may be more rooted in societal rejection than in the practice of gender transition itself.
Spiritual Health in Transgender People: While it’s true that some transgender individuals may struggle with spiritual concerns about their identity, many find peace in reconciling their faith with their gender identity. Pastoral care approaches, which emphasize understanding and unconditional love, have helped some transgender people find a sense of peace and acceptance in their relationship with God.

(On “The Harm Argument”) First, this argument is based on an unbiblical view of God and of sin. God is a holy and just God. He does not accept sinners who are insistent on remaining in their sin. But Jesus calls sinners to “repent and believe the gospel” because “the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mk 1:15). That is, the judgment of God is coming, therefore, everyone should repent (or turn) from their transgressions against God’s Word and turn to Christ. There is no option to remain in sin and “find peace and acceptance in their relationship with God.” Pastoral care approaches which emphasize unconditional love without repentance are not pastoral nor loving, for they are leading people away from healing and wholeness and into wrath and condemnation. The claim is often made that harm comes from social ostracism and non-acceptance of one’s gender identity, but these statements are made from correlation rather than consistent studies showing causation. Rather, the great harm to the soul comes from remaining in sin without repentance (Ps 32) rather than a lack of affirmation. And in addition to the spiritual harm is the bodily harm that comes through continually affirming someone who thinks their healthy, well-functioning body is opposed to them so they eventually bring harm to the body through hormonal “therapy” or sex-reassignment surgeries which often lead to many medical conditions and ailments that are very hard to reverse or cure. The Bible warns us that “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy” (Pr 27:6) and “if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness” (Gal 6:1). Christians are not called to affirm or accept what God calls as sin, but, out of love, to warn others against it and even to reject those who are determined to remain in their sin despite what God has said, especially when it is sexual sin (Mt 18:15-20 & 1 Cor 5).

Conclusion
Your perspective is deeply rooted in a particular theological view of sin and salvation, which regards transgenderism as a rejection of God’s design. However, when viewed through both a theological lens that emphasizes grace, love, and human dignity, and through scientific research that supports gender-affirming care, the issue becomes more complex than simply labeling transgender identity as sinful.
Instead of focusing exclusively on rejection, many Christians might view this issue as one that requires compassion, understanding, and care, recognizing the intrinsic dignity and worth of each person, regardless of their gender identity. Both theology and science can guide us to offer support and love while respecting the deeply personal and spiritual nature of each individual’s journey.

(On “Conclusion”) The theological view that regards transgenderism as a rejection of God’s design is not a separate lens than emphasizing grace, love, and human dignity. When used to support transgenderism or the misnomer “gender-affirming care,” the biblical ideas found in the terms grace, love, and human dignity are perverted to mean the exact opposite of the intended meaning that the biblical authors used them to communicate. Grace speaks of showing someone undeserved favor as the offer of salvation is received through faith and repentance. Grace is not extended when repentance is not exhibited. Love speaks of a determination to sacrifice of oneself for the benefit of another, especially when it involves warning him of the danger of his own sins. When Jesus offered healing in grace and love, He often warned the soul He cared for against sin with statements like “do not sin anymore, so that nothing worse happens to you” (Jn 5:14). The idea of human dignity is mocked by encouraging persons to deny their biology and especially to harm their bodies in order to appease a psychological delusion. Human dignity reassures the person that his body is a good gift from God which should be cherished, not maimed so they cannot function.

Also, there are examples of changing gender identity in the Bible. In the Bible, there are several instances where eunuchs are mentioned, and their stories offer a profound message of salvation and inclusion. Here are some key examples:
The Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-40)
Story: Philip the Evangelist is sent by the Holy Spirit to meet an Ethiopian eunuch who is reading the book of Isaiah. After explaining the Scriptures to him, Philip shares the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the eunuch believes and is baptized.
Scripture: “Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, ‘See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?’” (Acts 8:35-36)
Message: This story illustrates that even those who were considered outsiders or excluded from full participation in Jewish religious life, such as eunuchs, could find salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
Isaiah’s Prophecy (Isaiah 56:3-5):
Context: The prophet Isaiah speaks about God’s inclusive promise for foreigners and eunuchs, showing that they will be accepted by God and included in His blessings.
Scripture: “Let not the son of the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord speak, saying, ‘The Lord has utterly separated me from His people’; nor let the eunuch say, ‘Here I am, a dry tree.’ For thus says the Lord: ‘To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.'” (Isaiah 56:3-5)
Message: This passage underscores God’s promise that eunuchs who remain faithful to Him will be honored and receive an everlasting name, symbolizing inclusion and salvation.
The Eunuch in the Court of Queen Esther (Esther 2:9, 13-14):
Story: In the book of Esther, eunuchs served in royal courts, and one of them, named Hegai, helped Esther in her preparation to meet the king. While not directly about salvation, this account demonstrates the role eunuchs played in God’s unfolding plan, as Esther’s rise to royalty was part of God’s providence to protect His people.
Scripture: “Now the young woman pleased him, and she obtained his favor; so he readily gave beauty preparations to her, besides her allowance. Then, with her, he provided for her beauty treatments and the special food.” (Esther 2:9)
Message: Though not directly linked to salvation, God used eunuchs in significant ways within His plans, suggesting that they were not excluded from His purposes.
Summary:
The Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8) exemplifies the open invitation of salvation for all, regardless of their social or physical status.
Isaiah 56 promises that eunuchs who are faithful will be given a special place in God’s kingdom.
Eunuchs in Esther show that even those who were marginalized played significant roles in God’s plan, demonstrating their value in His sight.
Together, these examples reveal that eunuchs are not excluded from salvation but are included in God’s promises when they faithfully follow Him.

(On Eunuchs in the Bible) These examples are quite irrelevant to the argument for transgenderism because these men did not claim to be women nor were they trying to deceive others in regard to their biological sex. They knew they were men and everyone else did too. Most of them were forced to become eunuchs. Again, the baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch points to the fact that he repented of sin. The Isaiah passage reveals that God’s salvation can come to those who have become eunuchs, but again they are those who “choose what pleases” God, not that which He calls an abomination (Dt 22:5).

_________________________

After this, a few other peripheral arguments were made, but I have not had time to address them. I hope to do so in a later post.

As a Pastor, I often keep an eye on the spiritual and religious atmosphere and views of the community in which I serve. I have found that in every community I have served, differences of view regarding baptism have surfaced. While the mode of baptism is not the most important consideration for this ordinance of our Lord,[1] it is still a weighty matter. Discussions regarding the mode of baptism should be approached in a spirit of grace and charity as there are sincere followers of Jesus who commend each mode. While advocating that the Bible presents only one right mode of baptism, I hope my respect and Christian affection for believers who differ may be seen.

The deciding factor for Christians and local churches can never be convenience, tradition, sentiment, beauty, or preference. Instead, God’s will, as revealed through Holy Scripture, must determine how we obey the ordinance of baptism regarding mode. Therefore, I set out to make a brief argument for immersion as the only biblical mode of baptism to the exclusion of affusion (pouring), and aspersion (sprinkling). Scripture reveals four reasons to understand biblical baptism to mean immersion.

First, the word “baptize” used in the Greek New Testament communicates immersion. Since Jesus commanded His Apostles (a command which was passed down to local churches) to make disciples by going with the gospel and then, “baptizing [disciples] in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19), we need to know what exactly Jesus was commanding local churches to do and disciples of Jesus to receive. Does the command to baptize mean to sprinkle someone? Does it mean to pour water over someone’s head? Or does it mean to submerge someone under water? The word Jesus used here was a form of the Greek verb βαπτίζω (baptizō).

G. Abbott-Smith’s Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament gives the meaning of the verb βαπτίζω (baptizō) as “to dip, immerse, sink” and explains that it was used in the 2^nd Century BC by Polybius to describe soldiers wading breast-deep in water and of sinking ships.[2] Joseph Thayer provides “to dip repeatedly, to immerge, to submerge” as his first entry for βαπτίζω (baptizō) and “to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water” as his second entry.[3] Thayer explains, “In the N.T. it is used particularly of the rite of sacred ablution, first instituted by John the Baptist, afterwards by Christ’s command received by Christians and adjusted to the contents and nature of their religions…an immersion in water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin, and administered to those who, impelled by a desire for salvation, sought admission to the benefits of the Messiah’s kingdom.”[4] William Mounce says that βαπτίζω (baptizō) “literally means ‘to put or go under water.’”[5] Finally, the most trusted lexicon for contemporary New Testament scholarship gives the following two first entries, “wash ceremonially for purpose of purification, wash, purify” and “to use water in a rite for purpose of renewing or establish a relationship w. God, plunge, dip, wash, baptize.”[6] Even when the term baptize is used in a different sense than Christian baptism, such as ritual washing of the hands or utensils, the context implies that the entirety of the hands or eating utensils are being enveloped in the water (Mark 7:4).

The definitions, examples, and explanations provided by the aforementioned Greek New Testament scholars for βαπτίζω (baptizō) necessitate that the object of baptism be surrounded by or submerged under water. When Jesus gave the command in Matthew 28, He was giving the command to immerse disciples under water.  

Second, the baptismal ministry of John the Baptist was one of immersion. All four gospels present John baptizing people in the Jordan River. Matthew describes John’s ministry this way, “in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea…Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River” (Mt 3:1, 5-6). Why did John set up the headquarters for his ministry in the wilderness?

If he was trying to reach the Jews of Jerusalem and Judea with his message of the Messiah’s coming, why not set up his ministry in the capital city of Jerusalem where there was a large population of Jews and where those Jews of the surrounding regions would frequent for holy days and business? These Jews of Jerusalem and Judea were, after all, those who were coming out to him in the wilderness. The answer to our question is that John set up in the wilderness at the Jordon so there would be water plenteous enough and deep enough to baptize people by immersing their entire bodies under the water. In his gospel, the Apostle John records that Jesus and His disciples went to Judea and were baptizing there and that John the Baptist was also “baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there” (John 3:22-23).

If John were merely sprinkling each person with water or pouring water over each person’s head, he could have used receptacles of some sort, even large ones such as those containing twenty or thirty gallons of water at the wedding of Cana (John 2:6). Such containers were used for ritual washings in which water was poured over the hands of the observer.[7] John could have used such containers to pour water over the heads of many people and to sprinkle even more with water. But instead, even though it limited his audience, John ministered in the wilderness at the Jordan so there would be plenty of water to immerse those who repented.

Third, Jesus set the example for us in being baptized by immersion. The baptism of Jesus by John is recorded in the three synoptic gospels (Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-13, & Luke 3:21-22). Jesus was baptized in the Jordan because that is where the water was abundant for John to be baptizing, as mentioned above. When John baptized Jesus, Mark described Jesus as “[i]mmediately coming up out of the water.” To come up out of the water implies that Jesus, in the act of being baptized, had indeed been in and under the water from which He had to come up and out. This phrase would not have been used if Jesus had been sprinkled or poured over. As Christians seek to be conformed into the image of our eldest Brother (Romans 8:29), being baptized the way He was baptized, by immersion, is significant.

Fourth, the meaning baptism is to symbolize can only be rightly portrayed through immersion. Romans 6:1-13 is one of the key New Testament passages explaining the meaning of water baptism. In Romans 6, Paul makes the argument that Christians, though we were justified by faith and not by observing the Law, should resolutely avoid sin. One prong of his argument is that Christians have been baptized. He explains that when a Christian is baptized, we are baptized “into [Jesus’] death.” He describes this as being “buried with Him through baptism.” Immediately, Paul moves from the death and burial of Jesus to the resurrection of Jesus. He states, “so that as Christ was raised from the dead…we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection.”

In this Romans passage, Paul uses the term “likeness” (ὁμοίωμα, homoioma; image, similitude, resemblance) to describe baptism, showing it to be a symbol. The symbol is meant to represent death, burial, and resurrection in three instances. The first instance is from the past in that the baptism of each believer is meant to be a reminder of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus to the local church who is baptizing and the Christian who is being baptized. The second instance is contemporary in that the baptism of each believer represents the regeneration of the believer being baptized. Through faith, this believer has died to sin and is walking in newness of life according to the ways of God. The final instance is future in that the baptism of each believer represents his or her union with Christ. Since Christ died, was buried, and rose again, so too, the believer being baptized, even though he or she will physically die and be buried, he or she will also be physically raised unto eternal life.

The consistency and details of symbols are important because they convey an agreed upon meaning in a community or society. For instance, a wedding band on the ring finger of the left hand communicates that a person is not available romantically because he or she is already in a marriage covenant. If a person decided to replace his wedding band with a bracelet on his left wrist or even just move his wedding band to the index finger of his right hand, it would cease to function as a symbol because the rest of the community does not understand the meaning of the bracelet or the misplaced wedding band. It is similar with baptism. Aspersion and affusion do not convey symbolically the ideas of death, burial, and resurrection. There is no similitude of dying, of being buried, or of being raised through the acts of sprinkling or pouring. In neither does the person go down as into a grave nor come up as in resurrection. Yet, in immersion, the person goes down into and under the water, representing death and burial and comes up out of the water, representing resurrection.  

While symbolic customs may change from culture to culture and age to age, with baptism, we are considering a divine ordinance of a God who does not change (James 1:17). In this brief article, I could have addressed the mode of baptism from a church history standpoint, but I felt that there was no need. The New Testament only portrays baptism, not just by immersion but as, in its very nature, the act of immersion under water. Church history shows that aspersion and affusion developed after the era of the New Testament for the sake of convenience and the ease of baptizing infants (another practice that cannot be found in or supported by the New Testament). But since God has given us the symbol of baptism by immersion and since He does not change, Scripture alone is sufficient to guide us in deciding the right mode of baptism.

As mentioned above, in the discussion of baptism, mode is not the most important concern. It is, indeed, an issue of secondary doctrinal importance. As such, I am grateful for many brothers and sisters I have in Christ even though they have not been baptized by immersion but have instead received aspersion or affusion. I enthusiastically look forward to worshipping Christ with them around His throne in heaven. I acknowledge that I have learned a great deal from fellow saints in the Lord who received aspersion or affusion instead of baptism by immersion. I do however, hope that each brother and sister in the Lord will allow the Word of God to be the sole guide in understanding the mode of baptism as a symbol that those who have not been immersed may partake in the blessing of Scriptural baptism.

---

[1] The nature, affect, and object of baptism are more important considerations. Baptism is not a sacrament but an ordinance and as such, it does not convey saving grace but instead symbolizes it. As the initiatory ordinance of the local church, baptism functions, not only to identify the believer with Christ’s death and resurrection, but to assimilate him into the church body. Holy Scripture gives no indication that anyone other than a born-again believer should receive baptism by Christ’s church (a view known as credobaptism or believer’s baptism). While pedobaptism (infant baptism) is well-meaning, the practice comes out of tradition rather than Scripture and it often brings spiritual harm by giving the unregenerate a false hope of salvation.

 

[2]  G. Abbott-Smitt, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1922), 74.

 

[3]  Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Coded with Strong’s Concordance Numbers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2017), 94.

[4]  Ibid.

 

[5] William D. Mounce, ed., Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 52.

 

[6] Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition, eds. Frederick William Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), 164. 

 

[7] Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), 182. 

Often, the discussion about abortion is reframed as “Reproductive Rights” and “Health Care.” But providing and allowing for abortion is neither a right nor health care. The discussion is also framed as a personal choice or a political issue. But it is neither a personal nor is it primarily a political issue. Ethical issues, that is, the consideration of what is right and what is wrong, cannot be personal. No community nor any legal system could function if moral issues were only understood as personal matters. And sadly, the issue of abortion has been polarized between two parties. I hope that, no matter what your party affiliation, you will consult God before a political party’s platform.

The issue of abortion is primarily theological because God speaks clearly on this issue. It is secondarily moral because God tells us what is right and wrong regarding the issue. It is thirdly spiritual because committing abortion does heavy damage to one’s soul while choosing life brings great joy to one’s soul. God’s Word shows that the raising of children is hard but is also one of the highest blessings in this life. The following seven passages show us what God has said regarding this issue.

Genesis 1:26-28, “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

In this passage, we learn that God made mankind in His image. We see in this passage a value distinction made between mankind and all other creatures. Because humans are made in God’s image, we bear a special, higher value than all other forms of created life. With higher value means heavier accountability and greater respect. God’s plan for His image-bearers is that they would reproduce and fill the earth, displaying His glory in a representative way throughout His creation. If God deems someone a human, by virtue that he or she bears His image, we must show dignity and honor to that one. But to what extent should we show dignity and honor to an image-bearer?

Genesis 9:5-7, “Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man. “As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.”

In Genesis 9, God had destroyed the world with a flood because of the great rebellion of mankind against Him. Noah and his family alone were preserved by an ark which God directed Noah to build. As Noah’s family exited the Ark, God reminded Noah of the command He had given to the first man and woman. They were to reproduce and fill the earth with image-bearers. In this Genesis 9 passage, God ties the reproduction of mankind and the value of mankind to the death penalty. If an animal kills one made in God’s image or if a person murders a bearer of God’s image, the animal or the person who murdered were not to live. This shows the high value of an image-bearer and the high accountability of any who would harm or murder an image-bearer. To harm one who bears God’s image is a weighty matter and an offense against God Himself.

Exodus 20:13, “You shall not murder.”

This, the sixth of the ten commandments, lays down a prohibition against murder as a strict command of God. The ten commandments function as foundational laws from which the rest of the commands in the books of Moses flow. There are qualifications and applications given in the case laws that come after the ten commandments. We find one of those case laws that flows from this sixth commandment in the very next chapter of Exodus.

Exodus 21:22-25, “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

You may recognize this passage as it lays down what judicial philosophers refer to as lex talionis (Latin meaning law of the tooth), a principle meaning that the punishment should fit the crime. Many will recognize the phrases from this passage in Jesus’ teaching. Jesus did not abolition this law but rather was correcting a misapplication of it. This law is meant to guide human morality and jurisprudence. However, many in Jesus’ day were using this law as an excuse to exact personal revenge. With Jesus, we affirm this law’s right understanding and application.

The Exodus 21 passage guides the reader in how to apply the sixth commandment of chapter 20. It is particularly enlightening concerning the issue of the unborn. Do the unborn bear the image of God? Do the unborn deserve dignity and respect? Should there be restrictions and penalties upon those who would harm the unborn? This passage guides us to answer these questions in the affirmative.

In this case law, two men are fighting with each other but there happens to be a pregnant woman nearby. In the struggle, one man hits the pregnant woman out of negligence. The law gives two possibilities for offenses and their corresponding penalties. If there is a premature birth and no lasting damage is done to the mother or child(ren), the man who hit the pregnant woman will be fined. However, if some form of permanent damage is done to the mother and/or the child(ren), the talionis principle is applied. This passage guides the judge presiding over the case to exact whatever permanent damage is done to the mother and/or child(ren) upon the man who hit the pregnant woman. Notice that the life of the unborn child and the life of the man who harmed the unborn child are on the same level regarding worth and value. If the man bears value because he is made in God’s image and if he is punished in kind for the damage he had done to the unborn child, then the unborn child has the same amount of value and worth as the man. This guides us to understand that unborn children are image-bearers of God and therefore are worthy of protection, respect, and dignity, especially such as are procured through legal and judicial means.

Psalm 139:13-16, “For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.”

In this Psalm, David speaks of God’s intimate involvement in human conception. When a child is conceived, God acts intentionally to form inward parts and weave the child together in the mother’s womb. God sees every step of development of the child in the womb. While only recent advances in medical technology have allowed us to see these developments of the child in the womb, God has always seen them. And even now, he sees even the smallest incremental change that our technology still cannot detect. When the unborn child remained an “unformed substance” in the mother’s womb, God had ordained days and purposes for this child’s life. This passage reveals the personal and purposeful nature in which God is involved in the conception and forming of a child in the womb as well as the conveyance of personhood that such relational divine involvement bestows.

Jeremiah 1:4-5, “Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.'”

This passage, much like the last, reveals that when a child is conceived, God has an intimate knowledge of that child and specific plans for that child’s life. The kind of knowledge God possesses of the unformed one is personal and the plans God has for the unborn one are of the highest dignity–representing God (the purpose for which all God’s image-bearers were made). The knowledge and plans of the Lord reveal an intrinsic value that is only possessed by those who are made in God’s image. This passage and the Psalm 139 passage above both reveal that personhood is conveyed by God at conception.

Luke 1:39-45, “Now at this time Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah, and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.  And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.”

In this passage, Mary and her cousin Elizabeth are both pregnant: Mary with Jesus and Elizabeth with John the Baptist. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s voice, the unborn John leapt in Elizabeth’s womb. Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, revealed that the baby leapt with joy. The unborn child does something that human persons do–express joy. The unborn Jesus is also pictured in such a way that He must be recognized as a person. The Holy Spirit-filled Elizabeth acknowledges the unborn Jesus as her “Lord.” The word “Lord” denotes one who has authority over others, such as a master over a servant or a ruler over a people. It is a term of human interpersonal relationship. Neither an animal, nor an object, nor a “clump of cells” can be deemed “Lord.” This passage reveals that an unborn child is an image-bearer of God–a human person bearing all of the rights of a human person.

As we look at these seven passages, we realize that God has spoken in such a way that His Word applies to abortion. The Bible reveals that abortion is sin; abortion is murder. I want to encourage you that whatever circles you run in, please urge others against abortion–the great offense against God; the murder of precious unborn children made in His image.

I’m always excited for the New Year to begin. There is a great deal of excitement and hope in setting goals and making resolutions for the new year. The most common goals tend to deal with physical health and it is not uncommon to hear of goals pertaining to emotional wellbeing and intellectual growth.

However, this time of year is a wonderful reminder to evaluate your spiritual state and consider how you would like to grow spiritually in the coming year. The Apostle Paul reminds us about the great importance of spiritual discipline and health. He says, “discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness; for bodily discipline is only of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come” (1 Tim 4:7-8). The Lord Jesus is very concerned with us using our time in this life to bear good spiritual fruit for Him and His Kingdom by obeying His commands. In order to do so, we must remain healthy by staying closely connected to Him (John 15:1-10).

The Constitution of Grace Point Church calls for every member to take a spiritual growth assessment every year. Below, you will find the assessment and exercise I’ve prepared for Grace Point Church for 2023. I would like to invite you to take some time this week to consider your soul. How is your relationship with the Lord? How would you like to see yourself grow spiritually this year? What kind of eternal difference will you strive to make on behalf of King Jesus in 2023?

Read Mark 12:28-31.

On a scale of 0-10, how intensely are you loving God? (0 = not at all. 10 = very intensely).

0 1   2   3   4    5    6   7    8    9   10

In what areas in your life could you be loving God more fully?

Read Exodus 20:1-17.

Which of the ten commandments do you struggle with most often?

What steps can you implement in 2023 to honor the Lord’s command(s) more faithfully?

Read James 1:2-4 and 1 Peter 5:6-10.

How do you usually react when you face suffering, hardship, or trials?

What do your past reactions reveal about your view of God’s role in your hardships?

How can you prepare your heart and mind for future trials so you can honor the Lord in your reactions to them?

Read 2 Corinthians 13:5.  

When did you first hear the gospel of Jesus’ death & resurrection?

When did you repent of sin and place your trust in Jesus for salvation?

How has God changed your beliefs, attitudes, and actions since you have been saved?

Read Hebrews 12:1-3.

Are there any sins in your life that you need to repent of?

Are there any “encumbrances/hindrances/weights” that you need to “lay aside” because they are getting in the way of your service to the Lord? (Examples are inordinate time on social media or hobbies, excessive travel, overworking, etc.).

Read James 4:17.

Is there something you know the Lord wants you to do that you have been neglecting?

What is keeping you from obeying the Lord and why?

Read Joshua 1:1-9.

How often do you read the Bible?

Never

Rarely

A few times a month

A few times a week

Every day

What keeps you from reading the Bible more often?

What changes could you make in 2023 to prioritize Bible reading?

Read Matthew 6:6.

How often do you have set-apart prayer time?

Never

Rarely

A few times a month

A few times a week

Every day

What keeps you from spending more time in dedicated prayer?

What changes could you make in 2023 to prioritize dedicated prayer?

Read Hebrews 10:24-25.

How often do you attend Grace Point Church services in person?

Never

Once a month or less

Around two or three times a month

Every week

Twice a week or more

What keeps you from attending more faithfully?

What changes could you make in 2023 to prioritize church attendance?

 Read Malachi 3:8-12.

What percentage of your income do you give to the local church?

If you give 10%, how have you seen God provide for you as you have done so?

If you do not give 10%, what keeps you from doing so?

What changes can you make in 2023 to honor the Lord more faithfully through financial generosity and stewardship?

Read Ephesians 4:32.

Is there anyone you need to forgive?

If so, what is keeping you from entrusting God with the wrong he or she did to you?

Is there anyone to whom you need to apologize & seek restitution?

If so, what is keeping you from doing so?

Read Acts 1:8.

How often do you share the gospel with those who are not saved?

Never or rarely

1-4 times a year

5-10 times a year

Around once a month

Multiple times a month

Multiple times a week

What keeps you from sharing the gospel more often?

Who do you know that needs to hear the gospel?

Are you willing to go on a mission trip in 2023?

If yes, how can you start preparing for a mission trip?

If no, what would keep you from going?

If you are unable to go on a mission trip, how are you willing to support someone who can go?

 Read Romans 8:29.

In what ways would you like to become more like Christ in 2023?

How can you cooperate with the Holy Spirit in doing?

As you use this spiritual health assessment and growth exercise, if you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me using the contact form below.

Two days ago, the Kentucky supreme court heard arguments challenging the current bans on abortion in Kentucky. These bans, which were passed into law by the Kentucky legislature, have prevented many infants from being murdered by abortion in Kentucky since Roe v. Wade was struck down by the US Supreme Court in the Dobbs decision. For example, in March of 2022, nearly 500 babies were murdered by abortion in Kentucky, but since the trigger ban went into effect, by August, there was only one abortion in Kentucky. These laws that are being challenged before the Kentucky Supreme Court are very effective at saving the lives of the most vulnerable in our state. Any day, the Kentucky Supreme Court could hand down an injunction allowing abortion to resume while litigation on the bans continue.

I am pleading with you to be in prayer for the Kentucky Supreme Court that they would act justly by protecting those who cannot protect themselves. Please pray that God would bring the gospel message before the pro-abortion advocates that they might repent and be saved. Please pray for Kentucky that we would be a refuge for preborn persons.

I also ask that you would reach out to the Kentucky Supreme Court respectfully. During the hearing, at least one of the justices on the Supreme Court acknowledged that they are listening to the opinion of the people. Even outside the courtroom, pro-abortion advocates were chanting during the hearings and could be heard in the courtroom. Would you please contact the Supreme Court and urge them to uphold the laws which protect unborn persons from murder by abortion? You can contact the Kentucky Supreme Court here. Below is what I have written to them.

---

On the November 8, 2022 Kentucky election ballot, there is a proposed amendment to the Kentucky Constitution. The amendment reads, “To protect human life, nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion.” This amendment is on the back of the ballot and is non-partisan (a straight-party vote will not select either option on this amendment).

Voting Yes on this amendment will affirm Kentucky’s prolife laws that are already in place and will prevent state judges from overriding Kentucky voters and their elected legislators regarding abortion. In short, this amendment will protect unborn babies from being murdered, it will prevent Kentucky taxes from funding abortions, and it will keep Kentucky judges from legislating from the bench.

But does God speak to issues of abortion? If He does, His Word is binding since He is both our Creator and our Judge. What would God have Kentucky voters do in regard to Amendment #2? Let’s look at seven passage to see what God has said that pertains to this issue.

Genesis 1:26-28, “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

In this passage, we learn that God made mankind in His image. We see in this passage a value distinction made between mankind and all other creatures. Because humans are made in God’s image, we bear a special, higher value than all other forms of created life. With higher value means heavier accountability and greater respect. God’s plan for His image-bearers is that they would reproduce and fill the earth, displaying His glory in a representative way throughout His creation. If God deems someone a human, by virtue that he or she bears His image, we must show dignity and honor to that one. But to what extent should we show dignity and honor to an image-bearer?

Genesis 9:5-7, “Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man. “As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.”

In Genesis 9, God had destroyed the world with a flood because of the great rebellion of mankind against Him. Noah and his family alone were preserved by an ark which God directed Noah to build. As Noah’s family exited the Ark, God reminded Noah of the command He had given to the first man and woman. They were to reproduce and fill the earth with image-bearers. In this Genesis 9 passage, God ties the reproduction of mankind and the value of mankind to the death penalty. If an animal kills one made in God’s image or if a person murders a bearer of God’s image, the animal or the person who murdered were not to live. This shows the high value of an image-bearer and the high accountability of any who would harm or murder an image-bearer. To harm one who bears God’s image is a weighty matter and an offense against God Himself.

Exodus 20:13, “You shall not murder.”

This, the sixth of the ten commandments, lays down a prohibition against murder as a strict command of God. The ten commandments function as foundational laws from which the rest of the commands in the books of Moses flow. There are qualifications and applications given in the case laws that come after the ten commandments. We find one of those case laws that flows from this sixth commandment in the very next chapter of Exodus.

Exodus 21:22-25, “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

You may recognize this passage as it lays down what judicial philosophers refer to as lex talionis (Latin meaning law of the tooth), a principle meaning that the punishment should fit the crime. Many will recognize the phrases from this passage in Jesus’ teaching. Jesus did not abolition this law but rather was correcting a misapplication of it. This law is meant to guide human morality and jurisprudence. However, many in Jesus’ day were using this law as an excuse to exact personal revenge. With Jesus, we affirm this law’s right understanding and application.

The Exodus 21 passage guides the reader in how to apply the sixth commandment of chapter 20. It is particularly enlightening concerning the issue of the unborn. Do the unborn bear the image of God? Do the unborn deserve dignity and respect? Should there be restrictions and penalties upon those who would harm the unborn? This passage guides us to answer these questions in the affirmative.

In this case law, two men are fighting with each other but there happens to be a pregnant woman nearby. In the struggle, one man hits the pregnant woman out of negligence. The law gives two possibilities for offenses and their corresponding penalties. If there is a premature birth and no lasting damage is done to the mother or child(ren), the man who hit the pregnant woman will be fined. However, if some form of permanent damage is done to the mother and/or the child(ren), the talionis principle is applied. This passage guides the judge presiding over the case to exact whatever permanent damage is done to the mother and/or child(ren) upon the man who hit the pregnant woman. Notice that the life of the unborn child and the life of the man who harmed the unborn child are on the same level regarding worth and value. If the man bears value because he is made in God’s image and if he is punished in kind for the damage he had done to the unborn child, then the unborn child has the same amount of value and worth as the man. This guides us to understand that unborn children are image-bearers of God and therefore are worthy of protection, respect, and dignity, especially such as are procured through legal and judicial means.

Psalm 139:13-16, “For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.”

In this Psalm, David speaks of God’s intimate involvement in human conception. When a child is conceived, God acts intentionally to form inward parts and weave the child together in the mother’s womb. God sees every step of development of the child in the womb. While only recent advances in medical technology have allowed us to see these developments of the child in the womb, God has always seen them. And even now, he sees even the smallest incremental change that our technology still cannot detect. When the unborn child remained an “unformed substance” in the mother’s womb, God had ordained days and purposes for this child’s life. This passage reveals the personal and purposeful nature in which God is involved in the conception and forming of a child in the womb as well as the conveyance of personhood that such relational divine involvement bestows.

Jeremiah 1:4-5, “Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.'”

This passage, much like the last, reveals that when a child is conceived, God has an intimate knowledge of that child and specific plans for that child’s life. The kind of knowledge God possesses of the unformed one is personal and the plans God has for the unborn one are of the highest dignity–representing God (the purpose for which all God’s image-bearers were made). The knowledge and plans of the Lord reveal an intrinsic value that is only possessed by those who are made in God’s image. This passage and the Psalm 139 passage above both reveal that personhood is conveyed by God at conception.

Luke 1:39-45, “Now at this time Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah, and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And she cried out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.  And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord.”

In this passage, Mary and her cousin Elizabeth are both pregnant: Mary with Jesus and Elizabeth with John the Baptist. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s voice, the unborn John leapt in Elizabeth’s womb. Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, revealed that the baby leapt with joy. The unborn child does something that human persons do–express joy. The unborn Jesus is also pictured in such a way that He must be recognized as a person. The Holy Spirit-filled Elizabeth acknowledges the unborn Jesus as her “Lord.” The word “Lord” denotes one who has authority over others, such as a master over a servant or a ruler over a people. It is a term of human interpersonal relationship. Neither an animal, nor an object, nor a “clump of cells” can be deemed “Lord.” This passage reveals that an unborn child is an image-bearer of God–a human person bearing all of the rights of a human person.

As we look at these seven passages, we realize that God has spoken in such a way that His Word applies to abortion. The Bible reveals that abortion is sin; abortion is murder. What would God have Kentucky voters do in regard to Amendment #2? He would have us vote to protect those who are made in His image who are defenseless to protect themselves. I urge you, in view of God’s Word, to vote “Yes” on Amendment #2.

In recent years, denominational differences have been downplayed as divisive or insignificant. I do not believe this is the case. In fact, the creation of denominations is, in reality, helpful for kingdom unity and work. Denominations exist so Christians with differing convictions can still acknowledge one another as Christian family and work in some Christian ministries and efforts together (like pregnancy resource centers, special prayer efforts, etc.), without causing division, distraction, or confusion in the local church as we seek to live out those differing convictions on how God desires to be worshiped and for His people to be discipled.  Imagine if, in the same local church, half believed in infant baptism and the other half in believer’s baptism, or a quarter believed in women pastors and three quarters did not, or if three fifths believed speaking in tongues means speaking in an angelic tongue and the other portion of the church believed it means speaking in known human languages in missional situations, or if half the church believed an outside authority, like a bishop or superintendent, had jurisdiction over the local church and the other half believed the church to be autonomous. There would be so much confusion in such a church that kingdom growth would be greatly hindered and subverted. So what is it at the core of being Baptist? What have Baptists historically believed that differs from many other Christian denominations?

The primary Baptist distinctive is regenerate church membership.

Baptists believe that no one can be admitted into church membership until he or she has first received salvation and baptism. Therefore, infants do not automatically become members. Furthermore, those joining must present sufficient evidence of a conversion experience.

The second Baptist distinctive is local church autonomy.

Baptists believe that each local church has authority from Jesus to govern herself under His authority. While Baptists believe in cooperation between local churches, no religious entity exists which has authority over a Baptist church. Conventions and Associations exist as cooperative networks rather than governing bodies. Such practices as “church campuses” subvert this distinctive.

The third Baptist distinctive is congregational polity.

Baptists believe in the priesthood of all believers—that God has regenerated every believer by His Spirit and in so doing equipped every believer for service in and for the church. Therefore, the local church is governed by the congregation. Members are guided by the Holy Spirit to discern His will together, typically in the form of a vote.

The fourth Baptist distinctive is symbolic immersive credobaptism.

Baptists believe the only legitimate form of baptism is that in which the baptized individual is a born-again believer in Jesus Christ who is baptized by immersion.

Baptist credobaptism is different from Campbellite baptism as Baptists see it as an an important sign which cannot earn, merit, or dispense God’s saving grace. Instead, it announces that one has already been saved prior to baptism and is now walking with Jesus and desiring to walk with the church. Baptists believe that Scripture reveals four aspects of rightful baptism:

            The right person: a born-again believer

In the Bible, there is never a hint that anyone should be baptized who has not decided for him or herself to surrender to Jesus in faith and repentance. Therefore, infants cannot be baptized. One who has undergone infant baptism should seek obedience to the Lord by being baptized legitimately as a believer.

            The right reason: obedience and declaration of your new faith.

Baptism is a sign to others that the new believer has joined with Jesus and with His church. Baptism should be motivated by a desire to love and obey the Lord—not in an attempt to gain salvation.

            The right method: immersion under water

The New Testament term for baptize (baptizō) means to immerse in water. Sprinkling (aspersion) and pouring (affusion) are not biblical methods found anywhere in the New Testament. Immersion is the only method of baptism that correctly portrays the death and resurrection which baptism represents (Romans 6:1-7).

            The right authority: a local church

Jesus commanded His Apostles to baptize new disciples with water (Matthew 28:19-20). The Apostles were the foundation of the church and this responsibility to baptize passed from them to local churches, as did the responsibility to make disciples for Jesus (Ephesians 2:19-22). Therefore, the local church is the only right authority and entity to baptize a new believer.

These four Baptist distinctives are not exhaustive but they are primary to what it means to be Baptist.