Pastor Jimmy Odukoya has delivered what appears to be an indirect response to the growing public backlash surrounding his marriage, using his Sunday sermon, “Don’t Miss The New,” to speak about past relationships, shame, new beginnings and God’s ability to bring something new out of difficult circumstances.
Although he did not explicitly mention the controversy or address the resurfaced photograph that has generated discussion online, the timing and substance of the message have made the sermon particularly significant in the ongoing conversation about his personal circumstances.
Preaching from Isaiah 43:18–19, where God tells His people not to remember the former things because He is doing something new, Odukoya encouraged his congregation not to allow the past to prevent them from recognising what God is doing in their present.
But one particular part of the sermon stands out.
While discussing the Samaritan woman in John 4, he referred to her history of five husbands and the man she was currently with, who was not her husband. He presented her story as an example of how something people might use to shame an individual can become part of that person’s testimony.
One of his striking statements was:
“That which they want to use to shame you is all part of the story.”
He also spoke about the Samaritan woman’s encounter with Jesus and how she became a witness to others.
In the context of the public conversation surrounding his marriage, this part of the sermon raises an important question: Is the Samaritan woman’s story an appropriate biblical comparison for the controversy, and does it answer the questions people are raising?
The Samaritan Woman: What Exactly Was Jesus Approving?
The Samaritan woman is an interesting biblical example, but I believe the passage must be examined carefully rather than used as a convenient explanation for every situation involving relationships and new beginnings.
In John 4:17–18, the woman told Jesus that she had no husband. Jesus responded by revealing that she had had five husbands and that the man she was currently with was not her husband.
What followed was a remarkable encounter. Jesus offered her living water, revealed Himself to her, and she went into the city to tell others about Him.
That is a powerful account of grace, revelation and transformation.
However, the passage does not tell us why the woman’s five marriages ended. It does not establish that she was responsible for every failed marriage, and it does not say that Jesus used her circumstances to establish a doctrine approving every form of divorce or remarriage.
We must not add to the biblical account.
The Samaritan woman’s story demonstrates that a complicated past does not prevent someone from encountering Christ or becoming a witness for Him. But that is not the same as saying that every decision made in a person’s relationship history has God’s approval.
God’s ability to use a person does not automatically mean that God endorses every decision that person has made.
That distinction is central to this discussion.
Grace Does Not Cancel Biblical Instructions
There is a difference between receiving God’s mercy and having every personal decision validated.
In John 8:10–11, Jesus told the woman caught in adultery that He did not condemn her, but He also instructed her to go and sin no more.
His mercy did not eliminate the call to obedience.
Romans 6:1–2 makes the same principle clear by asking whether believers should continue in sin so that grace may abound. Paul’s answer is emphatic: “God forbid.”
Therefore, when the subject is marriage, divorce and remarriage, we cannot simply replace the relevant biblical instructions with a general message about moving forward.
Jesus addressed marriage in Matthew 19:4–6 and 19:9. Paul also gave specific instructions concerning separation and reconciliation in 1 Corinthians 7:10–11.
These are not insignificant passages that can be ignored whenever someone wants to discuss a new beginning.
I am not claiming that every failed marriage has the same circumstances or that we know the private details of Odukoya’s previous marriage. We do not. But if a sermon invokes the Samaritan woman’s marital history in a discussion that the public understands as connected to a marriage controversy, it is reasonable to ask whether the comparison is theologically sound.
Grace is available to everyone, but grace must not be confused with biblical approval.
Isaiah 43:18–19: Does A New Beginning Mean The Questions Must Stop?
The sermon was built around Isaiah 43:18–19:
“Remember ye not the former things, neither consider the things of old. Behold, I will do a new thing…”
This is a powerful declaration of God’s ability to bring deliverance and restoration.
However, the passage must be understood in its context. God was speaking to His people about what He would do for them, making a way where there appeared to be none.
It is not a blanket instruction for Christians to stop examining their decisions, disregard accountability or treat every new development in their lives as automatically approved by God.
Moving forward does not mean refusing to examine the past.
A new beginning may be possible, but the question of whether a particular decision aligns with Scripture remains a separate matter.
That is why I believe using Isaiah 43 as the central response to questions involving marriage requires careful explanation.
What Example Is This Setting For Church Members?
This is perhaps the most important question for the church.
Pastors are not only called to preach. They are also expected to demonstrate Christian conduct and provide examples for the people they lead.
In 1 Timothy 4:12, Paul instructed Timothy to be an example to believers in conduct, love, faith and purity. Titus 2:7 also speaks about showing oneself as an example of good works.
So, let us bring this discussion into an ordinary church setting.
Imagine a female church member approaches her pastor and says:
“My husband is still alive. We are divorced, and I want to marry another man. What does the Bible say about my situation?”
Now imagine that the man she wants to marry is someone who was previously a close friend of her former husband.
Would the pastor simply tell her to forget the former things because God is doing something new?
Or would he sit down with her, examine the relevant scriptures and explain what the Bible teaches about marriage, divorce, separation and remarriage?
Would Matthew 19 be considered? Would 1 Corinthians 7 be discussed? Would the circumstances and responsibilities involved be examined carefully?
And if the proposed relationship involved someone who had previously been closely connected to her former husband, would questions about friendship, loyalty and Christian boundaries also be considered?
These are not unreasonable questions.
They become even more relevant in light of the photograph reportedly showing Odukoya serving as a groomsman at the wedding of the man who later became his wife’s former husband.
The photograph alone does not establish the full chronology or private circumstances surrounding these relationships. It does not tell us everything that happened, and we should not pretend that it does.
However, it naturally raises questions about the example being presented to Christians, particularly when the discussion is now taking place from the pulpit.
If a church member made a similar decision, would the same interpretation of the Samaritan woman’s story and Isaiah 43 be applied to that member?
Would the member receive the same explanation, or would the pastor apply the marriage scriptures differently?
That is where the issue of consistency becomes unavoidable.
Christian standards cannot become flexible depending on whose personal circumstances are being discussed. The Bible cannot be applied strictly when counselling ordinary members but explained differently when the person involved is a pastor.
The pulpit must not become a place where biblical principles are explained to members while personal circumstances are shielded from those same principles.
The Responsibility Of A Pastor When Responding To Criticism
I believe pastors deserve the same human dignity and consideration as everyone else. Public criticism should not become an excuse for cruelty, harassment or the invention of private details.
But pastoral leadership also comes with responsibility.
James 3:1 reminds us that those who teach will be judged more strictly. That is a serious warning about the responsibility attached to teaching God’s word.
When a pastor’s personal circumstances become a public discussion, he is entitled to address criticism. He can speak about grace, restoration, the pain of public judgment and the possibility of new beginnings.
But the congregation and the wider Christian public are also entitled to examine the biblical reasoning behind the message.
A sermon does not become immune from scrutiny simply because it is delivered from the pulpit.
And invoking a biblical character does not automatically settle the theological questions surrounding a modern situation.
My Position: The Samaritan Woman Cannot Be Used To Silence Legitimate Questions
My concern is not that God cannot give people another opportunity. I believe in God’s mercy, restoration and power to transform lives.
My concern is the application of Scripture.
The Samaritan woman encountered Jesus. Her past did not prevent Him from revealing Himself to her, and her encounter became a testimony that affected others.
But the Bible does not say that Jesus approved every circumstance of her relationship history. It does not give us enough information to make that conclusion.
Likewise, Isaiah 43 speaks about God’s power to do a new thing. It should not be used to suggest that questions about biblical marriage principles are now irrelevant.
There is a difference between people using someone’s past to humiliate them and people asking legitimate questions about whether a decision aligns with Scripture.
Those two things should not be deliberately confused.
A person can be treated unfairly by public criticism and still be expected to answer reasonable questions. A pastor can receive grace and still be accountable to the same Scriptures he teaches.
And if a message is being presented as an answer to public criticism, it should be strong enough to address the actual questions rather than simply remind critics that God can do something new.
The Question The Church Should Not Ignore
Ultimately, this conversation goes beyond one sermon or one pastor.
It concerns the standard of biblical teaching being presented to church members.
Are believers being taught that God’s grace is available even to people with complicated histories while still being instructed to take biblical marriage principles seriously?
Or are they being given the impression that the language of new beginnings is sufficient to move past every difficult question?
Those are not the same message.
Pastors should be able to speak about restoration without weakening biblical principles. They should be able to acknowledge public criticism without presenting every question as an attempt to shame them.
And church members should not be left wondering whether the biblical standards they are expected to follow also apply to those standing behind the pulpit.
If the explanation is good enough for the pastor, is it also good enough for the member?
That, in my view, is the question that deserves an honest biblical answer.
Cheek comment for SUMMARY ⚠️
Stay glued to MWRTIMES 🖋️🖋️
END
Be the first to comment