With Due Respect: Does the Bible endorse child marriage?

 

Recently, I saw some in people advocating for child marriage to justify child marriages in certain cultures, such as sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Sometimes they would misquote the Bible to justify or promote this practice. What does the Bible really say?

The Bible does not endorse, command, or promote child marriage
 I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew and developed and entered puberty. Your breasts had formed and your hair had grown, yet you were stark naked.

 “‘Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your naked body. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign Lord, and you became mine. -- Ezekiel 16:7-8

While the Bible does not specify an age, certain passages like Ezekiel 16:7-8 indicate the marriage was to be done after puberty. 

People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them. - Mark 10: 13 -16

In Mark 10: 13-16, Jesus also explicitly warned against exploiting children, and elevated their positions.

While the Bible was written in a world where post-pubescent teenage marriage was common, it nowhere endorses the marriage of children as that term is understood today. 

Mary did not marry at 3 years old
Another common rumour was that Mary (mother of Jesus) was three when she married Joseph. This idea comes from a non-biblical (apocryphal) text, the Protoevangelium of James (also called the Infancy Gospel of James), written in the 2nd century. 

This apocryphal story is not considered scriptural or historically reliable by most scholars or major Christian traditions; it was written to fill in gaps about Mary’s early life and emphasize her purity.

Early Christians did not practise child marriage.
Early and Medieval Christians did not practise the marrying or prepubescent children.

Christians lived within the Roman Empire (1 - 500s AD) and largely followed its customs. Roman law set the minimum marriageable age at 12 for girls and 14 for boys, based on presumed puberty. Marriages could sometimes occur slightly earlier in practice (especially among elites for alliances), but consummation was typically expected around or after physical maturity.

During the Medieval era (500s to 1500s AD), the Church formalized rules through canon law. By the 12th century (Gratian’s Decretum and later developments), the minimum ages for a valid marriage were set at 12 for girls and 14 for boys—aligned with the ages of presumed puberty and the capacity for consent. Betrothals could happen as young as 7 but they were promises of marriage and can be left unconsummated.

Conclusion
The historic Christian principles of maturity, consent within the cultural framework of the time, protection of the vulnerable, and the high view of the marriage covenant run counter to the exploitation of children.

Theology 1.0: Who is Fyodor Dostoevsky?

 

Regarded as one of the greatest Christian writers of all time (outside the Bible), Fyodor Dostoevsky was a major Russian novelist, short-story writer, essayist, and journalist. He is considered to be one of the most influential writers in world literature. His works explore psychology, philosophy, religion, morality, free will, suffering, guilt, and the human condition with extraordinary depth and intensity.

Dostoevsky’s life was dramatic and turbulent. He was arrested in 1849 for involvement with a radical intellectual circle, sentenced to death, and subjected to a mock execution before the sentence was commuted to hard labor in a Siberian prison camp (the experience shaped The House of the Dead). He struggled with epilepsy, gambling addiction, financial hardship, and personal losses. Later in life he became more conservative and Orthodox Christian in outlook, though his novels remain deeply questioning and polyphonic (presenting multiple competing worldviews without easy resolution).His influence is enormous: he affected writers and thinkers including Nietzsche, Freud, Camus, Sartre, Kafka, and countless modern novelists. His exploration of the “underground” psyche, moral ambiguity, and spiritual crisis continues to resonate.

Why are his works regarded so highly?
Theologian J.I. Packer, for example, called Dostoevsky “the greatest Christian storyteller ever,” noting that his portrayal of human misery and sin is matched only by his vision of God’s grace and suffering. Others, including Catholic writers and critics, have described The Brothers Karamazov specifically as “the greatest Christian novel.”

He recognises complexities of faith and presents no easy answers.
Dostoevsky puts the strongest possible arguments against Christianity into the mouths of his characters and lets them speak with full force. The classic example is Ivan Karamazov’s “Rebellion” and the “Grand Inquisitor” legend in The Brothers Karamazov: a devastating indictment of a world that allows the suffering of children, and a critique of the Church’s alleged betrayal of Christ’s freedom. Only after giving unbelief its most powerful voice does the novel respond—not with abstract theology, but through the lived example of active love, humility, and responsibility embodied by Father Zosima and Alyosha. Faith emerges as a free, hard-won choice in the face of doubt, which many readers find more compelling than didactic reassurance. 

His characters are flawed.
His characters are not cardboard saints or sinners. He explores the “underground” of the human soul—pride, guilt, self-will, the desire to play God, the torment of a guilty conscience—with unmatched intensity. Works like Crime and Punishment show a modern “superman” ideology collapsing under the weight of moral reality and pointing toward repentance and resurrection (echoing the Gospel of John, especially the raising of Lazarus). Suffering is not romanticized; it is shown as potentially purifying when united to Christ-like love.

The use of Christ as an icon
Characters such as Sonya Marmeladova (Crime and Punishment), Prince Myshkin (The Idiot), and Alyosha Karamazov (Brothers Karamazov) embody aspects of Christ—meekness, unconditional love, the willingness to suffer with and for others—in a psychologically modern, realistic setting. Dostoevsky wanted to show that the image of Christ remains possible and powerful even in a skeptical, ideologically charged age. His novels treat freedom, responsibility (“each is responsible for all”), and the smallest acts of goodness as central to the Christian life.

"Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.” — Father Zosima; Brothers Karamazov

With Due Respect: Is the Reformation just "German autism"?

 

Martin Luther, considered the person who kick started the Reformation

Recently, one of my Roman Catholic friends described how the Reformation is simply "German autistic response to Italian management".

His meme was direct. The Reformers were unnecessarily pedantic and idealistic to the more pragmatic and traditional Roman Catholic Church. So is his criticism valid?

A clash of two worlds
The Reformation did involve a collision between a more literal, text-obsessed, low-trust, high-conscientiousness Northern European mindset against a hierarchical, patronage-driven, Mediterranean ecclesiastical system centered on Rome.

Martin Luther’s obsessive focus on justification by faith, his demand that doctrine be tested against Scripture rather than tradition or papal decree, and the broader German/Swiss willingness to rupture institutional unity over principle all look, from a certain angle, like the theological equivalent of high-systemizing, low-agreeableness rigidity (commonly associated with our memetic view of autism).

The late-medieval papal court, with its Italian-dominated Curia, indulgences, simony, and Renaissance worldly pragmatism, can reasonably be caricatured as “management”—more concerned with cash flow, political alliances, and institutional continuity than with forensic theological purity.

Overly simplified
As with any catchphrase, this view of the history is overly abstracted. 

For one, the theological substance mattered. Sola scriptura and sola fide weren’t just German personality quirks; they addressed real late-medieval abuses and earlier reform currents such as Wycliff (English) and Hus (Czech). Even later Reformers like Calvin (French) and Zwingli (Swiss) expressed similar sentiments. Reducing it to national psychology erases the actual arguments.

Sure, Luther was confrontational, scrupulous, and sometimes pathological in his anxiety, but he was also a university professor, polemicist, and political operator who understood power.

Finally, the Roman Catholic side was not just simply corrupt Italian management. It contained its own reformers, mystics, and rigorous theologians; the Counter-Reformation later demonstrated considerable institutional seriousness.

Pope Leo X, the pope during the Reformation

Conclusion

Calling the core Reformation program "autistic" understates the situation they faced:

Late-medieval Western Christianity had accumulated practices and claims — the treasury of merits, the sale of indulgences as a revenue system, mandatory clerical celibacy amid widespread concubinage, the practical withholding of Scripture from the laity, and an increasingly monarchical papacy — that were not minor administrative quirks. Bear in mind that Rome's responses were rarely to seek clarification, but to condemn and suppress.

If you take the Bible as the final norm (the Reformers’ premise), then questions of how a person is justified before God, what constitutes the Church, and whether the pope has universal jurisdiction are not just fine print. The insistence on precision was closer to necessary clarity on the salvation of mankind.

With Due Respect: Did King David exist?

 

David, as depicted in the 2025 film David

King David was one of the central figures of the Old Testament in the Bible. He was a king who allegedly united Israel, conquered Jerusalem, and founded a dynasty. 

However, pre-1993 few scholars accepted David as a historical figure because there was no clear extra-biblical evidence for him. The general reception was that he was a legendary founding figure of Israel on the scale that King Arthur was the founder of Britain.

Unlike kings such as Omri (1 Kings 16), Ahab (1 Kings 16), or Hezekiah (2 Kings 16), David was not clearly mentioned in surviving inscriptions from neighboring civilizations. This led to the question:

If David was such a significant king, why has no contemporary source ever mentioned him?

Tel Dan Stele

In 1993, the Tel Dan Stele was excavated in Tel Dan, Northern Israel. Dated about 800s - 700s BC it explicitly stated the "House of David". The stele was mostly likely made by the Aramean king, Hazael, and celebrated his military victories over the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

The crucial point was that it was written by an enemy kingdom, not by Jews.

This meant that a century and a half after David's lifetime, neighboring states recognized a dynasty named after David. Therefore, David was very unlikely to be a completely fictional invention of much later writers.

Conclusion
Today, few scholars doubt the existance of David. The historical questions have shifted to the nature of his kingship (e.g. how big was his kingdom).

The Tel Dan Stele provided the first widely accepted external reference to David's dynasty and significantly changed the debate

Alternative Culture: The theology of the 2026 World Cup

 

AI art of Uzbekistan's Fayzullaev

Every four years, the world stops.

Billions watch matches played across continents. Streets fill with celebration and heartbreak. National anthems are sung with pride. Flags appear in windows. For a brief season, people who otherwise share little in common are united by a common hope -- that their team will lift the trophy.

As a global phenomenon, this event invites theological reflection.

A gathering of nations
After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands -- Revelations 7:9

Scripture reveals at the end times, all nations and culture would unite to worship God. 

The World Cup (while being secular) offers a faint echo of this reality. People from vastly different cultures, languages, and histories gather around a common event. Rivalries remain, yet there is also a shared recognition of our common humanity.

When the sport is played rightly, the World Cup reflects aspects of God's design: discipline, creativity, teamwork, excellence, sacrifice, and perseverance. The World Cup showcases human beings exercising talents that ultimately come from their Creator.

AI art of Scotland's McGinn

The limits of earthly glory

but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. -- James 1:14-15

Yet the World Cup also reveals the human heart. Good things often become ultimate things.

National identity can become nationalism. Support can become obsession. Healthy enjoyment can become worship. Fans may find their mood, relationships, or sense of worth entirely determined by the success of a team.

Human achievement, however impressive, is temporary. This is not a reason to despise success. Rather, it places success in perspective.

The World Cup reminds us of both the greatness and the fragility of human glory. The celebrations are real, but they do not last. The victories matter, but not forever.

A better kingdom
Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
    and your dominion endures through all generations.
The Lord is trustworthy in all he promises
    and faithful in all he does - Psalms 145:13

While the World Cup gives us a sense of unity, we must remind ourselves this unity at best is temporary. The final whistle eventually blows, and ordinary life resumes.

Christianity teaches that humanity's deepest hope is not found in international sport, political institutions, or cultural achievements. It is found in Jesus Christ.

One day people from every nation will gather, not around a football pitch, but around the throne of the Lamb. Their unity will not be temporary or symbolic. It will be eternal. The World Cup can be enjoyed as a wonderful celebration of human culture and competition. But it also points beyond itself.

Every earthly gathering of the nations is merely a shadow of the greater gathering still to come.

And unlike the World Cup, everyone invited to that kingdom will never go home disappointed.

Alternative Culture: The Theology of Frieren: Beyond Journey's End

 

[The following post is dedicated to my wife, who loves Frieren: Beyond Journey's End]

One of the most popular anime nowadays is Frieren: Beyond Journey's End. I even see it traction among the Christian community who often regard it as the anime version of the Book of Acts.

In this post I want to explore the theology of this anime. I have watched the anime until season 2's end, so all my information is based on that. Furthermore, the creators of the series are probably not Christian, so any apparent relation to Christianity is accidental rather than intentional.

So what happens after the journey is completed?

Unlike most stories, Frieren: Beyond Journey's End takes place after the main quest have been resolved. The demon king is defeated by the human hero Himmel and his companions (one of whom is the elf Frieren). As a result, the story is focused on Frieren trying to find purpose after her quest is done (which includes finding and defeating the remnants of the demon king's followers)

This is similar to the Christian religion where Jesus had already defeated death and assured the salvation of mankind. All that is left with persuading humanity of the truth of the gospel. This immediate aftermath is covered in the book of the Bible called Acts.

The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah. - Acts 5: 41-42

Similarly, Frieren continues to do good with the mantra "what would Himmel do?".

Maturing over time

After Himmel's death (due to old age), Frieren wept. She had spent a good ten years with Himmel but yet she hardly knew him as a person. She understood his battle strategy, his values and his behaviour, but she did not know his personality, his likes and his philosophy. She had kept him at an arm's length, and only at his death she regretted not treasuring him.

Instead of staying at the stage of grief, Frieren moves on and starts her own journey and begins to understand Himmel better.

Similarly in Acts, the disciples of Jesus who once not understood that he was Messiah became transformed by friendship with Jesus and each other. They grew in their knowledge of Christ and became brave even in the face of persecution.

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all - Acts 4: 32-33

Beware false teachers

Another point that the series make is to beware of the lies from the demon mouth. In one instance, a demon loosely uses the word "mother" to appeal for mercy from humans. However, the demons were shown not to share the same morals -- they do not even have the concept of family.

This parallels the concept of false teachers in Acts. They appear to be fellow Christians, speak the same language or share the same values but seek to lead people astray.

I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.
-- Acts 20: 29-30

Conclusion

In short, Frieren feels like a fantasy "Acts" because it captures the spirit of continuing the mission after the great victory — traveling, forming community, doing good, confronting evil, and grappling with time, loss, and eternity. That's why it resonates so deeply with Christian audiences even without intending to. 

Just bear in mind that:

A) Frieren is not allegory or propaganda. It's a secular Japanese fantasy with Buddhist/Shinto influences mixed in, focused on melancholy, slice-of-life pacing, and appreciating the present.

B) Acts is explicitly evangelistic and theological, centered on the Holy Spirit, resurrection, and salvation through Christ.

C) Frieren is slower and more introspective; Acts is full of dramatic miracles, persecutions, and church growth.

Theology 1.0: Who is James Gilmour?

James Gilmour (1843–1891) was a Scottish Evangelical Christian missionary, best known for his dedicated (and often lonely) work among the Mongols in the late 19th century. 

Born on June 12, 1843, in Cathkin, near Glasgow, Scotland, to James and Elizabeth Gilmour, he studied at the University of Glasgow. Inspired by the Great Comission (Matthew 28:19-20), he offered himself to the London Mission Society (LMS) for Mongolia—a vast, nomadic region dominated by Lamaist (Tibetan) Buddhism. At that time, there was a notable lack of missions there.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. - Matthew 28:19-20

Ordained on February 10, 1870, he sailed shortly afterward, arriving in China (then based in Peking/Beijing) to prepare. Unlike earlier LMS pioneers (such as Edward Stallybrass and William Swan, who had worked in the north near Siberia earlier in the century), Gilmour operated from the southeast, using Peking as a base.

His work
Gilmour's approach was methodical. In the summer, he made long, arduous itinerating trips across the Mongolian plains, living among nomadic herders, sharing their tents, food, and hardships. He traveled on foot or horseback, often in harsh conditions.

During the winter he returned to Peking to work among Mongols who came to the city for trade or other reasons, while also continuing language study and medical work.

He learned Mongolian (and improved his Chinese), practiced simple medicine to gain access to people, preached, distributed tracts and books, and engaged in conversations about faith. 

In 1874, he married Emily Prankard (whom he had corresponded with from England) in Peking. They had a happy marriage and children, but it was marked by tragedy: Emily died in 1885, and their youngest son died in 1886. In 1883, he wrote Among the Mongols, a vivid, firsthand account of Mongol life, customs, superstitions, daily habits, and his travels. It remains a valuable window into 19th-century Mongolian culture from a missionary perspective.

The work was extremely difficult. Mongolia was deeply steeped in Buddhism, and many felt little need for Christianity. For the first four years, he saw no converts. It took 14 years before his first known Mongol baptism—a nomadic layman named Boyinto.

Death
In 1891, after a brief return to China, Gilmour attended a committee meeting but was suddenly struck by a severe case of typhus fever. He died on May 21, 1891, in Tianjin (Tientsin), China, at age 47, after about 21 years of missionary service.

Despite the slow results, Gilmour earned affection from many Mongols, who reportedly called him “Our Gilmour.”