What do you think?
Rate this book
31-Day Devotionals for Life
Engagement: Preparing for Marriage
Have your wedding plans crowded out the spiritual significance of your marital union? God created marriage as a picture that demonstrates his love and character—both to you and to those around you. Using daily devotional readings, reflection questions, and practical action points, Mike McKinley prepares your heart for the wonderful, sanctifying calling to love another person in a way that echoes God’s love for his people. In the 31-Day Devotionals for Life series, biblical counselors and Bible teachers guide you through Scripture passages that speak to specific situations or struggles, helping you to apply God’s Word to your life in practical ways day after day.
- GenresChristianRelationships
87 pages, Kindle Edition
Published May 3, 2020
6 people are currently reading
28 people want to read
About the author
Mike McKinley
47 books20 followersMike McKinley is the author of Passion, Did the devil make me do it? and Church Planting is for Wimps. Since 2005 he has been pastor of Guilford Baptist Church in Sterling, Virginia. Before that, he served on the pastoral staff of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington DC, having received his MDiv from Westminster Theological Seminary. Mike is married to Karen, and they have five children.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
November 12, 2025
McKinley wants to argue that human identity, marriage, and gender roles all flow from the nature of the triune God. Across his discussion, he advances three key ideas: that humanity reflects God’s image through unity and diversity; that marriage uniquely displays this image to the world; and that marital roles are patterned after Christ and the Church. While this framework offers an elegant theological symmetry, it extends beyond what Scripture explicitly supports. McKinley conflates categories and overlooks the specific purposes of marriage and gender distinctions revealed in the biblical text.
The Image of God and the Nature of Humanity
McKinley’s foundational claim is that the image of God consists of both unity and diversity, because God is triune. He writes that “humanity is created to reflect the image of this God who is both unity and diversity” (37). Unity, for McKinley, reflects God’s oneness (“while each person is fully God, there is only one God” (36)), while diversity reflects the relational distinctness of the divine persons who exist in “loving community” with “different roles and identities.” From this, McKinley concludes that human beings, created male and female, manifest the divine image through their unity-in-diversity.
This interpretation draws partial support from Genesis 1:26–27, which depicts humanity as a plural unity (“let them have dominion”) and as “male and female.” However, Genesis also connects the image of God to humanity’s vocation: to exercise dominion over creation (1:26). Thus, the image is not limited to relational plurality but also encompasses representation and authority. McKinley’s argument, by emphasizing relational diversity, underplays this functional aspect. Moreover, his appeal to the Trinity as the reason for humanity’s unity and diversity relies on inference rather than exegesis. While the plural pronouns in “let us make man in our image” may hint at divine plurality, the text does not explicitly link this to gender differentiation. Consequently, McKinley’s trinitarian basis for human diversity goes beyond what Genesis establishes.
Marriage as a Reflection of the Divine Image
Building on his view of humanity, McKinley argues that marriage itself reflects the image of God: “When a man and woman come together in marriage, this union of sameness and distinctness acts as an echo of God’s identity” (36). He then concludes that “you do not really see the point of marriage unless you see that God is three in one” (36). In this framework, marriage is designed to display the unity and diversity of the Trinity to the world.
Yet this claim depends on equating the unity and diversity of humanity with that of marriage, which Scripture does not do. Genesis 1:26–27 describes mankind collectively as the image of God, while Genesis 2:18–25 introduces marriage as a later institution serving companionship and procreation. Every human, male or female, bears God’s image by virtue of creation, not by virtue of marital union. To argue that marriage uniquely reflects the Trinity therefore misreads the sequence and focus of the creation accounts. Furthermore, while marriage does involve unity (becoming one flesh) and distinction (male and female), Scripture locates its theological meaning elsewhere: not in the Trinity per se, but in the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:22–25). McKinley’s attempt to root the purpose of marriage directly in the Trinity collapses two separate biblical analogies (creation and redemption) into one.
Christlike Love and the Husband’s Role
McKinley’s discussion of Ephesians 5 further extends his theological synthesis. He claims that just as Jesus’s love for the Church is specific and sacrificial, so a husband’s love for his wife should be specific and sacrificial. He highlights that “Jesus’s love is for a very specific group: his church” (37) and that “a Christian husband gives himself up for his wife by putting her needs ahead of his own” (38). While these statements reflect biblical truths, McKinley’s interpretation again overlooks the passage’s central emphasis.
Paul’s focus in Ephesians 5:25–27 is not merely the object of Christ’s love, but its purpose: “that he might sanctify her…that she might be holy and without blemish.” Christ’s love is redemptive and purifying. Consequently, Paul’s call to husbands is not simply to sacrifice, but to love in a way that promotes their wives’ holiness. Furthermore, Ephesians 5:28–30 clarifies that husbands imitate Christ by nourishing and cherishing their wives as their own bodies. McKinley’s stress on self-sacrifice risks flattening this rich picture into generic altruism, rather than a Christ-shaped love oriented toward his wife’s spiritual good.
Submission, Understanding, and the Wife’s Hope in God
Finally, McKinley turns to 1 Peter 3 to discuss wifely submission and a husband’s responsibility to live “in an understanding way.” He identifies fear as a key barrier to submission: “the fear that might make [wives] want to take over for their husbands” (45). He interprets Peter’s reference to “holy women…who hoped in God” as evidence that submission requires trust in God’s care. While this interpretation captures one possible implication, the text suggests a broader purpose. Peter’s emphasis throughout chapters 2–3 is on doing good so that unbelievers “may see your good deeds and glorify God” (2:12). A wife’s submission, then, functions evangelistically: her respectful and pure conduct may win over a disobedient husband (3:1). The issue is not primarily fear but faithfulness in doing good.
Similarly, McKinley’s claim that husbands should live understandingly because submission is “scary” does not reflect Peter’s reasoning. The apostle grounds his exhortation in the nature of women as the “weaker vessel” and as “heirs with [men] of the grace of life” (3:7). The call to live with understanding is universal, not contingent on a wife’s fear. It reflects an attitude of honor rooted in shared spiritual inheritance, not an empathetic response to submission anxiety. McKinley’s paraphrasing of the text obscures this nuance and shifts the emphasis from theological equality to psychological sensitivity.
Conclusion
McKinley’s theological vision is unified by a single theme: that human relationships, especially marriage, mirror the nature and love of God. His desire to locate gender and marriage within the grand narrative of divine unity is commendable and pastorally motivated. However, his interpretation often merges distinct biblical categories (creation, Trinity, redemption, and marital ethics) into an overarching symmetry that Scripture itself does not maintain.
The image of God in humanity indeed involves unity and distinction, but its connection to the Trinity remains implicit rather than explicit. Marriage embodies profound unity and complementarity, yet its purpose lies in companionship, procreation, and the reflection of Christ’s relationship to the Church, not in displaying the inner life of the triune God. Likewise, the commands of Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3 ground marital love and submission in Christ’s redemptive work and in mutual honor, not in speculative analogies to divine relations.
In sum, McKinley’s theology of marriage illuminates valuable aspects of biblical teaching but sometimes stretches its textual foundation. A more faithful reading recognizes both the dignity of the image-bearers in creation and the distinct redemptive purposes of marriage as revealed in Scripture, anchored not primarily in the Trinity’s mystery, but in Christ’s love and the gospel’s transformative power.
The Image of God and the Nature of Humanity
McKinley’s foundational claim is that the image of God consists of both unity and diversity, because God is triune. He writes that “humanity is created to reflect the image of this God who is both unity and diversity” (37). Unity, for McKinley, reflects God’s oneness (“while each person is fully God, there is only one God” (36)), while diversity reflects the relational distinctness of the divine persons who exist in “loving community” with “different roles and identities.” From this, McKinley concludes that human beings, created male and female, manifest the divine image through their unity-in-diversity.
This interpretation draws partial support from Genesis 1:26–27, which depicts humanity as a plural unity (“let them have dominion”) and as “male and female.” However, Genesis also connects the image of God to humanity’s vocation: to exercise dominion over creation (1:26). Thus, the image is not limited to relational plurality but also encompasses representation and authority. McKinley’s argument, by emphasizing relational diversity, underplays this functional aspect. Moreover, his appeal to the Trinity as the reason for humanity’s unity and diversity relies on inference rather than exegesis. While the plural pronouns in “let us make man in our image” may hint at divine plurality, the text does not explicitly link this to gender differentiation. Consequently, McKinley’s trinitarian basis for human diversity goes beyond what Genesis establishes.
Marriage as a Reflection of the Divine Image
Building on his view of humanity, McKinley argues that marriage itself reflects the image of God: “When a man and woman come together in marriage, this union of sameness and distinctness acts as an echo of God’s identity” (36). He then concludes that “you do not really see the point of marriage unless you see that God is three in one” (36). In this framework, marriage is designed to display the unity and diversity of the Trinity to the world.
Yet this claim depends on equating the unity and diversity of humanity with that of marriage, which Scripture does not do. Genesis 1:26–27 describes mankind collectively as the image of God, while Genesis 2:18–25 introduces marriage as a later institution serving companionship and procreation. Every human, male or female, bears God’s image by virtue of creation, not by virtue of marital union. To argue that marriage uniquely reflects the Trinity therefore misreads the sequence and focus of the creation accounts. Furthermore, while marriage does involve unity (becoming one flesh) and distinction (male and female), Scripture locates its theological meaning elsewhere: not in the Trinity per se, but in the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:22–25). McKinley’s attempt to root the purpose of marriage directly in the Trinity collapses two separate biblical analogies (creation and redemption) into one.
Christlike Love and the Husband’s Role
McKinley’s discussion of Ephesians 5 further extends his theological synthesis. He claims that just as Jesus’s love for the Church is specific and sacrificial, so a husband’s love for his wife should be specific and sacrificial. He highlights that “Jesus’s love is for a very specific group: his church” (37) and that “a Christian husband gives himself up for his wife by putting her needs ahead of his own” (38). While these statements reflect biblical truths, McKinley’s interpretation again overlooks the passage’s central emphasis.
Paul’s focus in Ephesians 5:25–27 is not merely the object of Christ’s love, but its purpose: “that he might sanctify her…that she might be holy and without blemish.” Christ’s love is redemptive and purifying. Consequently, Paul’s call to husbands is not simply to sacrifice, but to love in a way that promotes their wives’ holiness. Furthermore, Ephesians 5:28–30 clarifies that husbands imitate Christ by nourishing and cherishing their wives as their own bodies. McKinley’s stress on self-sacrifice risks flattening this rich picture into generic altruism, rather than a Christ-shaped love oriented toward his wife’s spiritual good.
Submission, Understanding, and the Wife’s Hope in God
Finally, McKinley turns to 1 Peter 3 to discuss wifely submission and a husband’s responsibility to live “in an understanding way.” He identifies fear as a key barrier to submission: “the fear that might make [wives] want to take over for their husbands” (45). He interprets Peter’s reference to “holy women…who hoped in God” as evidence that submission requires trust in God’s care. While this interpretation captures one possible implication, the text suggests a broader purpose. Peter’s emphasis throughout chapters 2–3 is on doing good so that unbelievers “may see your good deeds and glorify God” (2:12). A wife’s submission, then, functions evangelistically: her respectful and pure conduct may win over a disobedient husband (3:1). The issue is not primarily fear but faithfulness in doing good.
Similarly, McKinley’s claim that husbands should live understandingly because submission is “scary” does not reflect Peter’s reasoning. The apostle grounds his exhortation in the nature of women as the “weaker vessel” and as “heirs with [men] of the grace of life” (3:7). The call to live with understanding is universal, not contingent on a wife’s fear. It reflects an attitude of honor rooted in shared spiritual inheritance, not an empathetic response to submission anxiety. McKinley’s paraphrasing of the text obscures this nuance and shifts the emphasis from theological equality to psychological sensitivity.
Conclusion
McKinley’s theological vision is unified by a single theme: that human relationships, especially marriage, mirror the nature and love of God. His desire to locate gender and marriage within the grand narrative of divine unity is commendable and pastorally motivated. However, his interpretation often merges distinct biblical categories (creation, Trinity, redemption, and marital ethics) into an overarching symmetry that Scripture itself does not maintain.
The image of God in humanity indeed involves unity and distinction, but its connection to the Trinity remains implicit rather than explicit. Marriage embodies profound unity and complementarity, yet its purpose lies in companionship, procreation, and the reflection of Christ’s relationship to the Church, not in displaying the inner life of the triune God. Likewise, the commands of Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3 ground marital love and submission in Christ’s redemptive work and in mutual honor, not in speculative analogies to divine relations.
In sum, McKinley’s theology of marriage illuminates valuable aspects of biblical teaching but sometimes stretches its textual foundation. A more faithful reading recognizes both the dignity of the image-bearers in creation and the distinct redemptive purposes of marriage as revealed in Scripture, anchored not primarily in the Trinity’s mystery, but in Christ’s love and the gospel’s transformative power.
June 29, 2022
This didn't give 5 stars because the first few chapters reflect replacement theology which I don't believe, but even in those chapters, the author's points were beneficial. This is not a full pre-marital counseling book, but it is full of Biblical instruction that will benefit your upcoming marriage. Especially if you have a longer engagement or limited pre-marital counseling, this is a good resource to think through important aspects of your marriage.
March 8, 2021
One of the best and most encouraging reads of the year for me so far. McKinley packs in rich theology through many practical topics in this small 31-day devotional. It was a helpful guide and encouraging book to read alongside my fiance in our season of engagement. I am thankful and encouraged by Pastor McKinley's work, I would recommend 10/10 to anyone who is engaged.
February 5, 2023
Recommended for us during pre-marital counseling. Not a bad book as far as devotionals go. Material wasn’t as deep as I imagined it would be, and it doesn’t help that my wife and I had already read half a dozen pre-marital books together.
August 2, 2023
… I definitely already left a review but she disappeared I guess
This book was an encouragement to me & david as we walked through engagement! My favorite aspect of it was how gospel centered it was, how it opened the floor for deeper spiritual conversations, & how it grew our prayer life.
This book was an encouragement to me & david as we walked through engagement! My favorite aspect of it was how gospel centered it was, how it opened the floor for deeper spiritual conversations, & how it grew our prayer life.
March 3, 2020
Excellent
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews