Vine Abiders Podcast

TL;DR

The Reformers taught that God legally credits Christ’s perfect obedience to believers—an unchangeable courtroom verdict called imputed righteousness.But Scripture’s emphasis is not on a legal transfer; it’s on union with Christ—a living participation in His life. Our righteousness isn’t Christ’s moral record applied to us, but God’s righteousness shared with us through being in Him.

In this view, salvation is relational and dynamic, not static or abstract. Remaining or abiding in Christ is essential; righteousness endures only as long as that union does. The call to holiness is therefore not optional but vital, because our standing before God depends on abiding in the Righteous One, not merely on a past declaration.

On Imputed Righteousness and Union with Christ

If there was one doctrine that was a signature of the Reformation, held in especially high regard by Calvinists and Lutherans, it was the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness.

Imputed righteousness, as taught in Reformed circles, is the teaching that Christ’s sinless life and perfect obedience to God’s law are credited to the believer’s account, as if they themselves had obeyed perfectly.

The doctrine is usually expressed in judicial terms, meaning that when Christ’s righteousness is imputed or accounted to the believer, it is like a not-guilty verdict in a courtroom—a once-and-for-all change in the believer’s ledger.

In this view, God in a sense no longer “sees” the sinner but His Son instead. In other words, righteousness is treated as a kind of legal fiction—God regarding us as if we had lived a perfect life, even though we have not.

There are aspects of the way imputed righteousness is taught that have been held since the earliest days of the church, while other parts originate with Luther, Calvin, and other Reformers.

First, let me be clear: I am not denying that righteousness is, in some sense, credited to believers through faith—Scripture plainly teaches this. As Paul writes:

“Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Romans 4:3)

What I am questioning is how that righteousness is given. The Reformers taught that Christ’s perfect obedience is literally and permanently transferred to the believer’s account. I disagree with that mechanism.

The righteousness we receive is not Christ’s moral performance credited to our name but is shared with us through union with Christ. And as we’ll see, that difference is not a small one—it has extremely serious implications.

Union With Christ

I would argue that in order to understand imputed righteousness, we need to first understand the doctrine known as Union with Christ.

If you have read the New Testament, you have likely noticed the repeated phrases “in Christ” or “in Him.” The idea is that, in a mysterious yet very real way, Christians are joined to Christ; we are said to be a part of His body.

It is one of the most common themes in the New Testament. For example, Christians are said to be crucified with Christ, buried with Christ, raised with Christ, seated with Christ in the heavenly realms, hidden with Christ in God, alive in Christ, a new creation in Christ, blessed with every spiritual blessing in Christ, redeemed in Christ, forgiven in Christ, justified in Christ, sanctified in Christ, triumphing in Christ, and more.

I would argue that the idea of us being “in Christ” is not poetic language but a real thing that happens to a Christian upon salvation. We are literally in Him in the same way that the Holy Spirit is in us. And why not? This is, after all, exactly what Jesus prayed to the Father would happen in the new covenant:

John 17:21–23“That they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.”

So the idea is that Jesus was in God in the same way we are in Christ.

It is not a perfect analogy, but it is something like three Russian dolls: the largest one being God, the middle one Jesus, and the smallest one us.

How Union Shares Every Blessing

The consistent New Testament idea is that all the blessings that we can claim as Christians are ours only because Jesus has been given those blessings by God, and we share in them if we are in Him—if we abide in Him.

For example, the Bible says that we are co-heirs with Christ. Christ has been given the Kingdom by God, and if we are in Him, we also share in that inheritance:

Ephesians 1:11“In Him we have obtained an inheritance…”(Notice it says “in Him.”)

His rewards are our rewards. Jesus says it this way, speaking to the Father:

John 17:22“The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one.”

Another important example: Jesus has attained eternal life, and Scripture says that if we are in Him, we share in His eternal life.

1 John 5:11–12“And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.”

John 6:56–57“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.”

John 14:19–20“After a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me; because I live, you will live also.In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.”

Abiding and Remaining in Christ

The union-with-Christ idea cuts both ways, though. The New Testament is full of passages showing that one who abides in Him can fall away, be cut off, or be spit out.

“Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.” (John 15:2a)

Paul makes it clear that we can be cut off from the olive tree:

“…if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.” (Romans 11:22)

Abiding or remaining in Christ is spoken of as conditional over and over in the New Testament.

“For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end.” (Hebrews 3:14)

“Yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—if indeed you continue in the faith…” (Colossians 1:22–23a)

I would even argue that when Jesus spits out the lukewarm believers in Revelation, that shows that those believers were at one time abiding in Him—in order to be spit out of Him, they had to be in Him.

So let’s bring all this back to Imputed Righteousness.

In the end, both the early church and the Reformers sought to explain how believers come to share in Christ’s blessings—chief among them, His right standing before the Father. The difference, as I said earlier, lies in the mechanism by which that sharing is understood to occur.

The Reformers believed Christ’s righteous record was credited to the believer’s account as a legal declaration of innocence. In this model, the believer’s status before God changes instantly and irrevocably, as if Christ’s perfect obedience were transferred to their ledger.

The early church, by contrast, understood salvation less as a legal transaction and more as a transformational participation in the life of Jesus.

The exchange between Christ and the believer is not a legal swap of status but a sharing of blessings and rewards that Jesus is the rightful owner of—including eternal life. The believer’s transformation in status is not a fiction maintained by divine bookkeeping.

In addition, for the Reformers, righteousness was a completed judicial act in which God declares the believer righteous once and for all. Within this legal framework, justification was understood as irreversible—just as a person acquitted in court cannot be tried for the same offense twice.

The early church, however, understood righteousness not as something handed down but as something entered into—a participation in the very life of Christ. It was not a status that could exist apart from Him, but a reality that continued only through ongoing union with Him. In that view, righteousness could not be treated as permanently secured in the abstract, because its endurance depended on remaining in Christ, the source of it.

Proof Texts for Imputed Righteousness

With all that in mind, let’s consider the main proof texts for the Reformed view of imputed righteousness. Here I would point out that the doctrine of Union with Christ is arguably the main point of these passages. If you have never noticed it before, you probably will now.

Philippians 3:9

“…and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.”

There are key truths here that Christians of every tradition can affirm: this righteousness is wholly from God and truly found in Christ. Again, the real difference lies not in its source but in its means—whether righteousness is something legally transferred to the believer, or something personally shared through a living union with Christ.

When Paul says he wants to be “found in Him,” this is not a decorative phrase. It is the controlling idea of the whole passage. The righteousness Paul describes is not stored somewhere outside of Christ and then credited to him; it exists only within that living union.

The next phrase says—“not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law.” Both sides would agree that the believer’s righteousness is not self-generated. The question is whether Paul means God declares the believer righteous because Christ’s record is applied forensically, or whether he means the believer shares in God’s righteousness through union with Christ.

The latter view is more coherent in my opinion, and the context of Philippians 3 supports this: after renouncing his own credentials, Paul longs to “gain Christ and be found in Him,” linking righteousness to knowing Him and sharing in His life (3:8–10). This is not a legal verdict applied once for all, but an ongoing, relational participation in the life of Christ.

Then Paul concludes with “the righteousness which comes from God.” Notice again: it is the righteousness from God or of God, not “of Christ,” as the Calvinist tends to read it. In the Old Testament this phrase “righteousness of God” spoke of God’s covenant faithfulness—His saving power that sets things right (more on that later).

So when Paul says he wants to be “found in Him… having the righteousness from God,” he means that his life has been relocated inside Christ, the place where God’s saving power operates.

Romans 3:21

“But now, apart from the Law, the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets.”

This verse marks a turning point in Paul’s letter to the Romans. Everything before it (1:18–3:20) has been about human unrighteousness: both Gentiles and Jews stand guilty before God, unable to justify themselves by obedience to the Law. Then comes Paul’s great “But now”—a shift from human failure to divine initiative. Now, something new has been revealed which is “the righteousness of God.”

For the Reformed tradition, they understand “the righteousness of God” as Christ’s righteous status that comes from God and is imputed to the believer through faith. Yet, it does not say “the righteousness of Christ,” but “righteousness of God.” In fact, you can’t find the phrase “righteousness of Christ” in the Bible at all.

In the Old Testament background that Paul is drawing on, “the righteousness of God” typically refers to God’s own covenant faithfulness—His saving power to set things right, to act consistently with His promises.

The righteousness of God was when God showed up or revealed Himself in history in order to rescue His people or judge their enemies in accordance with His covenant promises to them. This is a well-established point, and many theological papers have been written on this subject. Basically, “righteousness of God” is His breaking into history to save His people.

Paul is picking up that tradition when he says, “The righteousness of God has been manifested”—that is, it has appeared openly in history in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the promised Messiah to the Jews and salvation to the Gentiles. God has shown Himself faithful to His promises to Israel and merciful to the nations in Jesus.

So when Paul says, “Apart from the Law, the righteousness of God has been manifested,” he does not mean that a new kind of righteousness has been imported from outside or credited to our files. He means that what the Law and the Prophets long anticipated—God’s own act of putting the world to rights—has finally broken into history. God’s righteousness is not a moral grade handed down from heaven; it is His saving faithfulness unveiled in Christ, into which believers are now invited to step by faith.

2 Corinthians 5:21

“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Paul’s compact—and famously difficult—summary in 2 Corinthians 5:21 deserves careful attention. Like Philippians 3:9, this text locates everything in Christ—union is again the mechanism. But this passage is more complex than the others we have looked at because Paul’s overarching purpose in this section is not just to preach the gospel but also to defend his apostolic ministry, and that dual purpose makes 2 Corinthians 5:21 multilayered.

So let’s take this one step at a time, starting with the first phrase:

“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us.”

He says Christ was made sin in some way. My view is that this phrase recalls the Old Testament imagery of the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement, where the sins of the people were symbolically transferred to the scapegoat when the high priest would lay his hands on it and confess the sins of the people. The scapegoat was then set free, and it bore or carried those sins outside the camp into the wilderness. In a parallel way, Christ identifies with our sins and carries them away, and we are forgiven by God.

“So that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.”

At first glance, Reformed interpreters often see here a clear statement of imputed righteousness—that our sins were laid on Christ, and His righteousness was legally credited to us. But the wording itself resists that interpretation.

Once again, Paul does not say “the righteousness of Christ.” He says “the righteousness of God.”

Then comes the verb: we become. Paul does not say we receive righteousness or that we are declared righteous, but that we become it.

This “becoming” idea connects beautifully with 1 Corinthians 1:30:

“By His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.”

Notice the parallel—Christ became righteousness for us, and we become righteousness in Him. The verbs mirror each other, expressing shared life, not exchanged records.

The Righteousness of God

Now we have to ask the harder question: what does Paul mean by “the righteousness of God” in this case?

In the Hebrew Scriptures, as I have already alluded to, the phrase “the righteousness of God” often refers to God’s covenant faithfulness, particularly regarding saving His people or judging their enemies:

“My righteousness is near, My salvation has gone forth, And My arms will judge the peoples; The coastlands will wait for Me, And for My arm they will wait expectantly.” (Isaiah 51:5)

“In Your righteousness deliver me and rescue me; Incline Your ear to me and save me.” (Psalm 71:2)

So when Paul says we “become the righteousness of God in Him,” he means that God’s saving power is now being made visible through those who are preaching the gospel.

That is not to say that God’s righteousness cannot be understood as justification here—it can, because that is what the righteousness of God was doing in this case, saving people. It’s just that Paul is doing several things in this passage, and so it gets a bit complex.

The Ministry Layer

What I mean is that Paul’s immediate aim in this section is to describe and defend his ministry—what it means to be an ambassador of Christ. Throughout 2 Corinthians, Paul defends his ministry against misunderstanding, showing that his suffering, weakness, and endurance are not failures but evidence of God’s power working through him.

2 Corinthians 5:18–20“All this is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation…Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making His appeal through us.”

That phrase—“God making His appeal through us”—is the key to verse 21. Paul sees his and the other coworkers in the gospel ministry as the continuation of God’s reconciling work. God’s righteousness—His covenant faithfulness and restoring power—is enacted through human agents like Paul who are preaching the gospel.

In this sense, “becoming the righteousness of God” means that Paul and his coworkers are instruments of God’s saving power—His righteousness. Their ministry extends God’s action into the world. As they preach, God’s righteousness is revealed through them.

That being said, we should not restrict the “we” in these passages only to the apostles and other evangelists. Indeed, Paul’s logic here clearly extends to the wider church: what is true of his ministry is true of every believer. The church as a whole shares in that same ministry of reconciliation, to a certain extent at least.

After all, there is a dual purpose to Paul’s statement here, which is what makes the verse so rich. “We” refers both to Paul and other evangelists as God’s agents of reconciliation—which is a continuation of his main point about the defense of his apostolic ministry—but it’s also a picture of justification through union with Christ, just like the other passages we have looked at.

Imputed Righteousness and Eternal Security

If there’s a single place where the Reformed reading and what I have argued in this chapter truly diverge, it’s here: eternal security.

In the Reformed system, imputed righteousness becomes the lynchpin for “once saved, always saved.” The logic runs like this: if God has legally credited Christ’s perfect obedience to my account, then my standing before Him can never change—just as a courtroom verdict cannot be changed.

But if, as we’ve seen, the New Testament speaks of righteousness as a result of being in Christ—as a life shared by union, not a status possessed apart from Him—then the conclusion about irrevocability doesn’t follow.

The permanence of our standing depends not on an abstract legal deposit but on remaining in the One who is our righteousness (John 15:1–6; Colossians 1:21–23).

Here lies the practical divide. In a strict imputation-as-legal-transfer model, present sin cannot affect one’s standing before God—only one’s fellowship or “rewards.”

But in the union model, sin threatens communion with Christ. We can grieve the Holy Spirit—even quench or extinguish the Holy Spirit—through our sin. The call to holiness, then, is not decorative or motivational; it is existential.

“Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.”— 1 John 3:7–8

So the point of this chapter is not to deny that God “reckons” righteousness to believers. Scripture uses that language clearly. It is to insist that such reckoning never floats free from union. Once union is central, the supposed pipeline from imputed righteousness to eternal security breaks.

Rejecting “once saved, always saved” does not mean believers cannot have assurance. Scripture teaches that we can know we are in Christ if we are presently abiding in Him.

“Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?”— 2 Corinthians 13:5

“We know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.”— 1 John 4:13

“By this we know that we are in Him: whoever keeps His word.”— 1 John 2:5

True assurance is not presumption; it’s the present witness of the Spirit and the evidence of a life that continues to abide in Christ (Romans 8:16; John 15:10).

Conclusion

In sum, the question is not whether righteousness is God’s gift, but how God gives it.

To be found in Him is to have His standing, His life, His Spirit, and His rewards—including eternal life.

Thus, the church’s task is not to claim and rely on a past verdict of righteousness, but to abide in the Righteous One.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit vineabiders.substack.com

Matthew 5:33–37 NASB

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

Jesus here is not merely refining how we swear; He is forbidding oath-making entirely.

And later, James 5:12 NASB reinforces the same teaching:

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

With those texts in view, let us walk through what the Bible teaches about oaths and vows, why this is serious, and how it applies today.

Oaths vs. Vows — Clarifying the Terms

To understand what Jesus forbids, we should distinguish between oaths and vows (or solemn promises).

* Oath: a public guarantee of one’s speech or promise, often invoking God or something sacred to validate one’s truthfulness (e.g. “I swear before God that this is true”). It is directed toward assuring others of your sincerity or faithfulness.

* Vow: a solemn promise or dedication made before God, binding oneself to some act, abstention, service, or offering (e.g. a personal vow to fast, a Nazirite vow, or in some forms a marriage vow).

The difference is subtle but important: oaths are about proving the truth of one’s statement, often by invoking God’s name, whereas vows are about committing oneself before God. The Bible treats both seriously—but in different categories.

Biblical Foundations: Why Oaths Are Prohibited, Vows Are Regulated

Old Testament Context

The Old Testament contains many passages about oaths and vows. A few examples:

* Numbers 30:2 (NASB):

“If a man makes a vow to the LORD, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.”

* Deuteronomy 23:21–23 (NASB) says in part:

“When you make a vow to the LORD your God, you shall not delay to pay it, for the LORD your God will certainly require it of you; and if you refrain from vowing, it would not be a sin in you. But you shall be careful to fulfill what has passed your lips, for you vowed to the LORD your God what you have promised with your mouth.”

* Ecclesiastes 5:4–5 (NASB) warns:

“When you vow a vow to God, do not delay in paying it; for He has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you vow. Better not to vow than to vow and not pay.”

From these, we see that:

* Vows are not abol­ished—but once made, they are serious and must be honored.

* God expects integrity: if you set your word before Him, you should fulfill it.

* The failure to vow is not, in itself, sin; but making a vow lightly is dangerous.

Also, the Third Commandment—“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” (Exodus 20:7)—is widely understood to forbid not only profanity but also misuse of God’s name, including perjury (using God’s name to back up false statements). In Leviticus 19:12 we read:

“You shall not swear falsely by My name, so I will not hold guiltless the one who takes My name in vain. I am the LORD.”

Violating an oath made in God’s name is, thus, a serious defilement—dragging His name into a lie.

Historical examples underscore God’s seriousness:

* Saul and the Gibeonites (2 Samuel 21): Because Saul broke a long-standing oath to the Gibeonites, Israel faced famine and reaped dire consequences.

* Zedekiah’s oath to Babylon (2 Chronicles 36; Ezekiel 17): Though his oath was to a pagan king, God judged him for violating it—showing that oaths sworn even to unbelievers carry weight before the Lord.

These examples demonstrate that God regards oaths as binding—even toward those who are not God’s people.

Jesus’ Teaching: A Radical Prohibition

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus radicalizes the old commands. Rather than permitting oaths under certain conditions, He says:

“make no oath at all … But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil.”

He is sweeping away the loopholes and excusing formulas the Pharisees employed (e.g. “I swear by the temple, but not by the gold of the temple”). In doing so, He insists on a posture of sincerity and utter simplicity. His followers are to live in such honesty that no oath is needed.

James echoes this command nearly in the same words:

“Do not swear … but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment.”

Jesus’ and James’ warnings: invoking God’s name to reinforce our word is unnecessary if our life is built on truthfulness. Reliance on outward guarantees points to a deeper lack of integrity.

Why Oaths Matter to God

* Borrowing God’s reputationWhen we swear by God, we are effectively putting His name on the line for our truthfulness. If we break our oath, we not only break trust with the person but we bring dishonor onto God, dragging His reputation into falsehood.

* Character disclosureJesus’ command implies that Christians ought to exhibit such consistent truthfulness that no additional assurance is needed. Integrity should characterize every word we speak—so “Yes” is trusted, “No” is trusted, without needing external guarantees.

* Accountability and judgmentThe text warns that those who misuse oaths may fall under God’s judgment. It signals that God doesn’t take lightly what His name is enlisted into.

Modern Applications: Where Oaths Appear Today

Let’s look at some modern contexts in which oaths arise, and how a Christian committed to Jesus’ teaching might handle them.

Legal & Civil Oaths

* Court oaths / affidavits

* Jury oaths

* Public office oaths

* Citizenship oaths

In many legal systems (especially in the U.S.), one can legally affirm rather than swear an oath. Christians historically (e.g. Quakers, Mennonites, Amish) have used affirmations to avoid swearing by God’s name while still giving a binding pledge. If forced to choose, one should request an affirmation and avoid religious language like “so help me God” or raising ones hand etc.

Military Service & Allegiance Oaths

This is one area where things start to overlap with other serious questions for Christians—like violence, allegiance, and obedience to Christ. The early church took Jesus’ words about oaths very seriously, but they also took other words of His just as literally—particularly the command to love your enemies.

For them, loving your enemies meant not killing them. That conviction, combined with Jesus’ clear prohibition against taking oaths, was one of the main reasons early Christians refused to join the military. They couldn’t reconcile swearing allegiance to Caesar or pledging to obey military commands with following the One who said, “Do not resist an evil person.”

If this is something you’re wrestling with, I’d really encourage watching a short documentary called What If Jesus Meant Every Word That He Said? It’s a thought-provoking look at how some people in the military have wrestled with taking Jesus’ teachings seriously—especially on non-violence and allegiance.

As for me, I’m still working through all of this too. I don’t claim to have it all figured out. But I do know that if you’re in the military or thinking about joining, the oath issue alone should at least give you pause. The same goes for anyone taking any kind of formal pledge of allegiance.

If you’re convicted by Jesus’ teaching about oaths, there may be alternatives available. Most branches of service or government institutions have provisions for people who object to oath-taking on religious grounds—usually an “affirmation” clause that removes the religious invocation. But even so, I’d say there are bigger issues at play in the military context than just the oath itself.

Marriage Vows

Marriage is a covenant. The Bible does not prescribe a fixed ceremonial vow formula, but many modern wedding vows function similarly to oaths (“I vow to … before God …”). While these are not explicitly prohibited, we should treat them as solemn promises, with caution regarding invoking God’s name lightly. Simplifying them to clear affirmations of covenant might better reflect the spirit of Jesus’ teaching.

What to Do When Past Oaths or Vows Are Broken

If you have taken oaths or made vows and have not kept them:

* Confess before God, seeking His mercy.

* Where possible, fulfill the vow or oath in a righteous way (if it is not sinful).

* In some cases—if the vow was rash, frivolous, or sinful—prayerful repentance and seeking God’s guidance is appropriate rather than attempting fulfillment at all cost.

* From now on, commit to speaking truthfully without reliance on oaths.

The key is not to despair but to become more faithful in speech from here forward.

Living Without Oaths — A Witness of Integrity

Most of us have made statements like “I swear to God,” or promised “I’ll never do X” in strong terms. But now that we see the weight of those words, we are called to a higher path: let our “Yes” be “Yes,” and our “No” be “No”—with no need for oath-making.

A Christian who lives this way will manifest consistent integrity, and the world may see in that reliability a quiet but powerful testimony to the God we serve.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit vineabiders.substack.com

Divorce, Remarriage, and the Teaching of Jesus

Welcome back to Vine Abiders. In our study through the Sermon on the Mount, we’ve come to Matthew 5:31–32—the words of Jesus on divorce and remarriage. It’s not an easy passage. In fact, this subject has followed me in a unique way.

Last year I wrote a book on it—Remarriage After Divorce: A Biblical Defense of the Traditional Christian View. I didn’t publish it under my full name but under C.A. White, because I was hesitant to make it public. It’s a hard teaching. In America, almost everyone knows someone who has been divorced and remarried. Writing about it feels like a direct challenge to people we love.

But the Sermon on the Mount won’t let us skip difficult words. Jesus’ next subject is divorce and remarriage, so today I’m going to walk through the main arguments of that book and summarize what Scripture and church history actually say.

Three Views Within Evangelical Christianity

There are three main positions in the church today:

* The Permissive ViewDivorce is allowed in cases such as fornication or abandonment, and remarriage is permitted in those cases. This is common in modern evangelicalism.

* The No-Divorce ViewDivorce is never allowed for any reason, and remarriage is only possible after the death of a spouse. This is relatively new and niche, though it has modern proponents.

* The Traditional ViewDivorce may be permitted in limited cases, but remarriage while the former spouse lives is always adultery. This was the view of the early church and is the position I defend.

The Witness of the Early Church

For most of church history, the consensus was clear: divorce might be tolerated in some situations, but remarriage was forbidden as long as the spouse was alive.

William Heth and Gordon Wenham’s Jesus and Divorce puts it bluntly:

“To list those who hold that remarriage after divorce is contrary to the gospel teaching is to call a roll of the best-known early Christian theologians… in all, 25 individual writers and two early councils forbid remarriage after divorce.”

This wasn’t fringe. It was universal. The change came with the Reformation.

How the Reformation Changed Everything

Erasmus, an early reformer, was among the first to suggest that remarriage might be a “social good.” His reasoning wasn’t biblical but pragmatic—remarriage, he thought, could relieve social pressures and emotional pain.

Luther went further. He argued that adultery was a capital offense in Old Testament law. Since adulterers “deserved death,” they could be considered dead in God’s eyes, and the innocent spouse was therefore free to remarry.

Ironically, the same Luther who often dismissed the Old Testament as binding on Christians leaned on Old Testament stoning laws to justify remarriage. From there, Protestant teaching began to diverge from the early church.

What Jesus Actually Said

When we read all of Jesus’ statements together, three related sins emerge:

* Divorcing a spouse and marrying another is adultery. (Mark 10:11–12; Luke 16:18; Matthew 19:9)

* Marrying someone who has been divorced is adultery. (Luke 16:18; Matthew 5:32)

* Improperly divorcing someone makes them guilty of adultery. (Matthew 5:32)

This isn’t just about divorce. The real issue is remarriage.

Take Luke 16:18:

“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”

Notice the universality: “everyone.” There is no exception clause for remarriage.

Or Mark 10:11–12:

“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”

This passage makes clear that the sin applies to both sexes. Whether husband or wife initiates, remarriage is adultery.

Matthew 5 and Matthew 19

Matthew 5:31–32 is, in my view, the Rosetta Stone for understanding Matthew 19:9.

In Matthew 5, Jesus says that improper divorce causes the innocent spouse to commit adultery when they inevitably remarry. The exception clause (“except for immorality”) protects the innocent party from being guilty of causing that sin. But it says nothing about remarriage being allowed.

When we get to Matthew 19, the grammar is more difficult:

“Whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.”

Does the exception apply to divorce only, or also to remarriage? The early church, whose native language was Greek, interpreted it to apply only to divorce. They never read it as permission to remarry.

The disciples’ shocked reaction confirms this. They said, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” Their extreme response only makes sense if Jesus was teaching that remarriage after divorce is never permitted.

Paul’s Summary

Paul echoes this perfectly in 1 Corinthians 7:10–11:

“But to the married I give instructions (not I, but the Lord), that the wife should not leave her husband—but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband.”

Divorce? Possible.Remarriage? Not permitted.Reconciliation? Encouraged.

That’s the consistent pattern of Scripture.

Deuteronomy 24 and the Logic Puzzle

Much of the modern debate about divorce and remarriage really comes back to Deuteronomy 24:1–4. This passage is the starting point for the Pharisees’ question to Jesus in Matthew 19, and it’s also where we see how easy it is to miss the original point. At first glance, the text seems to assume that divorce will happen — it takes for granted that a husband might write his wife a certificate of divorce if he finds “some indecency” in her. But the real emphasis is on what happens next: if she marries another man and that marriage ends (either by divorce or by death), she may not return to her first husband, “since she has been defiled.”

The crucial detail is that the woman’s defilement comes not from the divorce itself, but from the remarriage. That is what renders her “defiled.” Some modern pastors try to argue that the defilement is tied to the first divorce or to the idea of returning to a former spouse, but that doesn’t make sense of the structure. The law is written like a logic puzzle: no matter how you trace the “if” statements, you end up at the same conclusion — it is the remarriage that introduces defilement.

And notice how airtight this is. Even if the second husband dies (which would normally make remarriage permissible), the text still says she is defiled. The inspired conclusion is unavoidable: yes, divorce happens, but remarriage while the original spouse lives is prohibited.

Did Divorce Always Imply Remarriage?

This brings us to a critical modern question: does the right to divorce inherently include the right to remarry? Many scholars sympathetic to remarriage argue that it does. They suggest that in Jewish practice, a writ of divorce automatically carried with it permission to remarry — otherwise, what would be the point?

But when we examine the actual evidence, that case falls apart. The scholar David Instone-Brewer is often cited as proving that ancient divorce certificates included the right to remarry. But in fact, only about one-third of the surviving documents say anything about remarriage. What do they all mention? The return of the dowry. That was the central legal function of the writ: ensuring that a woman’s inheritance was not stolen from her when she was sent away.

So why do some certificates add a remarriage clause? Likely because, by Jesus’ day, remarriage had become the cultural assumption — even though it contradicted the law’s deeper logic. Writing “you are free to marry another” into a minority divorce documents was not proof that God had sanctioned it. It was a human addition, reflecting the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ permissive mindset.

And this is where the Essenes provide an important counterpoint. This Jewish sect — likely the one John the Baptist was associated with — taught that while divorce could occur, remarriage was not lawful. Their conclusion matched the plain logic of Deuteronomy 24. So, contrary to the “universal consensus” that Instone-Brewer claims, at least some Jewish voices in the Second Temple period stood firmly against remarriage after divorce.

The Disciples’ Shock and the Eunuch Teaching

All of this context helps explain the disciples’ stunned reaction in Matthew 19. Jesus is not merely weighing in on whether “indecency” meant adultery or something trivial like burnt food. He is cutting through the Pharisees’ favorite debate and returning to the real point of Deuteronomy 24: divorce may happen, but remarriage is adultery.

That is why the disciples respond, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” They realized the stakes: once married, you are bound unless your spouse dies. Divorce does not open the door to a new marriage. And this is why Jesus immediately shifts into the teaching about eunuchs — a teaching that only makes sense if His point was that some people will have to remain single for the sake of the kingdom.

The Hardest Question

This leads to the most difficult issue: what about those who are already remarried while their first spouse lives?

John Piper, who holds the same traditional view, argues that such people should repent in heart but remain in the remarriage, honoring their current vows. Others make similar arguments.

But I struggle with this. Would we give the same counsel to someone in a homosexual marriage? Or to someone who made vows in a cult? Why should adultery be treated differently?

I don’t pretend to have all the answers. This is why I hesitated to even release the book. I fear both saying too much and saying too little. But we cannot simply presume upon God’s mercy when His Word is this clear.

Why It Matters

Paul warns in Galatians 5 that “adultery, fornication, and uncleanness” are works of the flesh—and that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. This isn’t academic. It’s eternal.

The early church took Jesus’ words at face value. The Reformers shifted the standard. And now we live in a time when the permissive view is almost assumed. But Jesus hasn’t changed. His words still stand.

Closing Thoughts

I don’t share this lightly. I know the pain it causes, the personal stories it touches, the lives it unsettles. But faithfulness requires us to look at what Jesus actually said and not twist His words to fit our desires.

If you want to go deeper, my book Remarriage After Divorce is available on Amazon, but I’ve also made the PDF and audiobook available for free on YouTube. Not because I want to profit from it, but because I believe this conversation is too important to hide.

As always, I invite you to wrestle with Scripture, pray deeply, and abide in the Vine—even when His words are hard.

Show Notes:

Remarriage After Divorce by C.A. White on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/Remarriage-after-Divorce-Traditional-Christian/dp/B0DPNBMLDB

Free PDF of Remarriage After Divorce by C.A. White:

Free audiobook on Youtube Remarriage After Divorce by C.A. White

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit vineabiders.substack.com

Lust, Adultery, and the Fear of the Lord: Taking Jesus at His Word

We’ve reached Matthew 5:27–30 in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus confronts lust head-on:

“You have heard that it was said you shall not commit adultery, but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you, for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you, for it is better to lose one of the parts of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”

The plain sense is hard to miss. As anger is to murder, so lust is to adultery; and the stakes are eternal.

For years I resisted that plain sense, assuming it was impossible for men not to lust—so Christ must mean something else, a kind of reverse psychology to push us toward grace. But that reading collapses under two things: the testimony of the early church and the consistency of the rest of Scripture.

What the earliest Christians taught

Before Constantine the church spoke with striking unity about salvation, holiness, and judgment. They believed Jesus meant exactly what He said and that Christians must actually obey Him. Consider these early witnesses:

Justin Martyr (A.D. 100–165): “For not only he who in act commits adultery is rejected by Him, but also he who desires to commit adultery: since not only our works, but also our thoughts, are open before God. And many will be found who have restrained themselves from the commission of adultery; but who have not abstained from adulterous desire. And such will be convicted by this very teaching of Christ, as being sinners, and as possessing adulterous lust.”

c. A.D. 175: “We are so far from practicing promiscuous intercourse that it is not lawful among us to indulge even a lustful look. For He says, ‘He that looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already in his heart.’”

They did not teach sinless perfection or salvation by works; they did teach that a believer can fall away and that “once saved, always saved” was a later innovation opposed by the fathers and associated with Gnostic errors. (For a longer treatment, see my documentary Once Saved, Always Saved on YouTube.)

Lust and adultery: not a clever analogy, but a fact

Part of Jesus’ force here is descriptive: if you indulge lust, your “I’ve never committed adultery” badge is meaningless.

If circumstances aligned—privacy, proposition, timing—you know where a lusting heart wants to go. Everyone recognizes the “dirty old man” who leers yet boasts he’s never cheated; no one calls that righteousness. Lust is adultery of the heart, full stop.

Scripture’s wider witness

Jesus’ warning isn’t isolated. The New Testament stacks passage upon passage with the same seriousness and the same outcome:

* Mark 7:21–23: “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries… All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”

* 1 Corinthians 6:9–10: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators… nor adulterers… will inherit the Kingdom of God.”

* Ephesians 5:3–6: “But sexual immorality and all impurity and covetousness must not even be named among you… For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure… has no inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.”

* Colossians 3:5–8: “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire… On account of these, the wrath of God is coming.”

* 1 Thessalonians 4:3–8: “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality… that no one transgress… because the Lord is an avenger in all these things… Whoever disregards this, disregards not man, but God, who gives His Holy Spirit to you.”

* Revelation 21:8: “…the sexually immoral… their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

The pattern is consistent: this is not optional; the consequence is hell. “Let no one deceive you with empty words.”

Don’t let anyone steal your treasure

Scripture exalts the fear of the Lord as a priceless gift and a protective fountain:

* “He will be the stability of your times… and the fear of the LORD is his treasure.” (Isaiah 33:6)

* “The fear of the LORD is a fountain of life, that one may avoid the snares of death.” (Proverbs 14:27)

* “By the fear of the LORD one keeps away from evil.” (Proverbs 16:6)

Today many say “fear” simply means reverence. But if you’re trapped in bondage—and lust is a dopamine-driven bondage—the fear of God is the rope that can pull you out. If “once saved, always saved” isn’t true and hell awaits those who persist in unrepentant sin, then the fear of the Lord becomes your lifeline. Don’t let anyone steal it.

My testimony: “The first look is temptation; the second look is sin”

I used to believe it was impossible not to lust. The breakthrough came with a simple distinction: you can’t control the first look; you can absolutely refuse the second. That second look is the choice to lust.

Realizing that made obedience plausible—and then, by the Spirit, actual. Around the same time the Lord freed me from alcohol (my chief bondage), He freed me from pornography and from choosing lust. It’s been two and a half years. I’m careful not to boast; I still police “loopholes” like second-glancing a face. But genuine freedom is real.

Freedom has come with a surprising feature: the suffering diminishes. Early on, resisting felt unbearable—like the day I rode past a line of women in bikinis and nearly reeled under the temptation. More recently, spending a day amid swimsuits at Nashville’s Opryland water park, I still didn’t look—and the inner battle, while real, was far lighter than two years prior. I don’t blame Babylon for being Babylon; I’m responsible for my eyes and my heart. And walking out that day, I felt the deep relief of no longer living in a bottomless pit of diminishing returns and growing slavery.

Repentance that sticks: teetotaling, burned bridges, and the fear of God

White-knuckling and dabbling keep you enslaved. The bridge back to sin must be burned. That’s what the fear of the Lord does—turns “I’ll try to quit” into “I’m done for good.”

A few hard-won lessons from that process:

* Teetotaling is the only option. Keep “dipping a toe,” and you’ll be back under it. You can die out there in backsliding. Repeated returns quench the Holy Spirit and open doors to the enemy’s temptations. Six months later, you’re numb to conviction and shopping for doctrines that excuse the bondage.

* Support groups aren’t the engine of freedom. Use them if they help, but recognize they often replace the fear of God with the fear of disappointing people. That may restrain you for a while; it won’t burn the bridge.

* Expect the loopholes. “Just the face.” “Just audio.” “Just if she’s not married.” Satan will throw a menu of compromises. Refuse them all.

And when you do slip, don’t presume on grace. Confess immediately and return like the prodigal for good—not for another month of cycles.

“If your right eye makes you stumble…”

I’ve heard “hyperbole” in nearly every sermon on Matthew 5:29–30. There is hyperbole in the first clause (“tear it out… cut it off”); gouging eyes and severing hands don’t cure the heart. A blind person can lust; a one-handed person can still sin. But the second clause is sober, literal truth:

“For it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”

On masturbation: some insist it’s always sin. I’m cautious. It is usually sin and tangled with dopamine addiction, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Lord convinced me it’s always sin. At minimum, treat it as a holiness issue before God, not a loophole.

Hell is real—and intolerable

Jesus spoke more about hell than heaven, using graphic language shared across Scripture. If you’ve softened hell into something tolerable—or into nonexistence—reconsider. I keep a YouTube playlist of vetted “hell testimonies”; the first is Bill Wiese’s 23 Minutes in Hell. What struck me was the consistency and the trauma: bodies that “regenerate” only to be tormented again; a world “more real” than this one; heat, stench, darkness, demonic cruelty—witnessed by people who seem deeply marked and unlikely to fabricate it. You don’t build a life on experiences, but let Scripture interpret them: nothing is worth your soul. Burn the bridge.

Suffering as part of sanctification

Resisting temptation is a form of suffering Scripture actually commends:

1 Peter 4:1–6: “Since, then, Christ has suffered in the flesh, you must also arm yourselves with a determination to do the same, because he who has suffered in the flesh has done with sin, that, in future, you may spend the rest of your earthly lives governed not by human passions, but by the will of God; for you’ve given time enough in the past to the doing of things which the Gentiles delight in pursuing.”

Over time, the suffering of saying “no” recedes; the freedom grows. That is the fruit of repentance and the Spirit’s power, not of loopholes or clever self-talk.

The final word

Jesus’ words are not optional. Lust is not harmless; it is adultery of the heart, and its end is hell. But there is real hope: repent, receive the Holy Spirit’s power, and treasure the fear of the Lord. Burn the bridge. Don’t let anyone steal that treasure from you. It is, as Proverbs says, a fountain of life.

We’ll continue alternating livestreams and Deformation chapters on Substack. Subscribe there for email notifications and to follow along as we keep digging into the words of Jesus—and by His grace, doing them.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit vineabiders.substack.com

The Consequences of Anger: A Study of Matthew 5:23–26

Welcome back to the Vine Abiders study. We are continuing our walk through the Sermon on the Mount. Last week, we began looking at Jesus’ “new commandments” in Matthew 5:21–22, where He equates anger with murder. This week, we move into verses 23–26, which are still about anger, but focus more on its consequences.

Recap: Jesus on Anger (Matthew 5:21–22)

Jesus says: “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder,’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the Supreme Court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.”

We asked the question: what are we going to do with Jesus’ teaching? He seems to be giving us new commandments to follow, which is very different from the way most evangelical churches present this passage. Luther and later Protestant tradition often taught that Jesus’ impossible commands were simply meant to show us we cannot obey. But the early church understood differently. Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, said: “He who raised Him up from the dead will raise us up also, if we do His will and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of money, evil speaking, false witness, not rendering evil for evil, railing for railing, blow for blow, or cursing for cursing.”

The early church was consistent. They did not teach sinless perfection. They did not teach salvation by works. They taught that salvation is free and undeserved, but that abiding in Christ means continuing in Him—keeping His commandments by the power of the Spirit. When Jesus says anger is equivalent to murder, He is stating truth, not exaggeration. Indulging lust means the only thing keeping you from adultery is opportunity. Indulging anger means the only thing keeping you from murder is opportunity. Virtue is not found in the absence of opportunity; it is found in resisting the desire itself.

Anger as Addiction

Anger is addictive. Biochemically, it produces dopamine just like alcohol, pornography, or gambling. The strongest dopamine rush comes when anger feels justified—when someone cuts you off in traffic, when rage-bait floods your feed, or when you see someone “get what’s coming to them.”

For years I believed anger and lust could not be resisted, that temptation always led to sin. But I came to realize something simple and life-changing: “The first look is temptation. The second look is sin.” I can’t avoid seeing the girl walking down the street. I can’t avoid the initial spark of anger when I’m wronged. But I can resist indulging it. That’s the difference, and that’s where victory lies. Like any addiction, it’s hard at first, but resisting gets easier with practice. Resist the devil, and he will flee.

The Fear of the Lord

No one overcomes a loved addiction without something monumental motivating them. Meth addicts know it destroys them but keep using. Anger is no different. What then is strong enough to break its hold? The Bible tells us: the fear of the Lord.

Isaiah 33:6 calls it “His treasure.” Proverbs 14:27 says, “The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, that one may avoid the snares of death.” Proverbs 16:6 declares, “By the fear of the Lord one keeps away from evil.”

Do not let anyone steal this treasure from you. Many churches today downplay the fear of God, redefining it as mere reverence. But Scripture is clear: fear is fear. Jesus Himself warned about hell repeatedly, and the early church embraced holy fear as the path away from sin. Without it, the bondage of anger will never be broken.

Anger and Prayer

Matthew 5:23–24 says, “Therefore, if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.”

Jesus says reconciliation is a higher priority than sacrifice, even higher than prayer. Before you pray, forgive. Mark 11:25–26 reinforces this: “Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.”

Peter writes in 1 Peter 3:7 that husbands must honor their wives “so that your prayers will not be hindered.” He goes on to say, “The eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous, and His ears attend to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”

If you feel like your prayers are dead, consider whether unforgiveness is at the root. Scripture is blunt: God will not hear the prayers of those who will not forgive.

Doors to the Enemy

Paul warns in Ephesians 4:26–27: “Be angry, and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil.” Anger gives Satan a foothold. Bitterness grieves the Holy Spirit. Cain’s story in Genesis 4 illustrates this. God told him, “Sin is crouching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.” Cain refused, and his anger led to murder.

Hebrews 12:14–15 warns that bitterness can cause many to be defiled, and that those who refuse to pursue peace and sanctification “will not see the Lord.” This is not a minor issue. Anger, left unchecked, can destroy faith itself.

Settle Quickly

Jesus continues in Matthew 5:25–26: “Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Truly, I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid the last penny.”

The immediate context is debtor’s prison in Roman society. But the principle is broader. Settle disputes quickly, before they escalate. Paul echoes this in 1 Corinthians 6, rebuking believers for suing one another. He says, “Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?”

The cure for anger is dying to your rights. If you cling to fairness, you will never find peace. But if you lay down your rights—if you turn the other cheek, if you let go of your coat as well as your shirt, if you walk the extra mile—you will be free.

Practical Steps

Fear God. Recognize that anger can damn the soul. Reconcile quickly. Do not take believers to court. Esteem others higher than yourself. Pray for your enemies, especially those who fuel your anger. Practice losing arguments and letting others have the last word. It is healing to die to self.

Conclusion

Anger may feel justified, but indulging it is deadly. It blocks your prayers, opens doors to Satan, defiles the soul, and endangers salvation. But through the power of the Holy Spirit, through holy fear, and through humble obedience to Jesus, anger can be overcome.

Take Jesus at His word. Reconcile quickly. Forgive freely. Live at peace with all people. The path away from anger is not weakness—it is freedom.

Vine Abiders ResourcesPodcast: Apple & Spotify (search Vine Abiders)Livestream: Wednesdays at 7 PM EST (YouTube & Facebook)Long-form series: The Deformation Series on Substack

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit vineabiders.substack.com

Join me for the first Vine Abiders episode 1, a livestream with Chris White, the producer of the documentary “Once Saved Always Saved?” Summary: In Matthew 5, Jesus makes it clear that anger is no small matter. He equates it with murder in the same way He equates lust with adultery. The early church understood […]

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit vineabiders.substack.com

This is part 4 of a series that will later be turned into a video on this channel

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit vineabiders.substack.com

This is part 3 of a series which will later be turned into a video series on this channel

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit vineabiders.substack.com

This is part 2 of a series that will later be turned into a video series and book.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit vineabiders.substack.com

This is the first installment of a multi part series. More notes to come soon.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit vineabiders.substack.com