Tuesday, 14 February 2017

Confession is good for the soul, second apology

This is something I should have confessed to all my viewers a while ago, years ago in 2011-2012, I confessed to God rashly for watching Prasch's videos and It was wrong of me going back to the videos when I said I wouldn't.

It was based on a misunderstanding of his position on Midrash and the article in question misrepresented his position but what I have said cannot be undone. Forgive me for the deception.

Answering Judaism.

Confession good for the soul, apologies to make

Remember the article I wrote with respect to Muslims and being ungracious. Well there are times I have been too ungracious to other people.

To Angel Lawin and Marihot Tobhing, I believe Maestro M Evangelista is not a true prophet and stands condemned by the Bible. But to slander you and offend you by referring to you as crazy and constantly engaging ad hominem attacks, using the snake insult and alike. Not saying I agree or want to compromise with your prophet but there is a way to discuss the issues with an insult.

To Dk man7 and xgamer, I have been fairly harsh with you in the past and while I believe you need to repent of your falsehoods, there again is a better way to address your objections and I repent of my insults toward you. Forgive me xgamer for not calling fitzy out for calling you gay.

The apology for being too harsh also extends to Richard Merrell, the writer of the article Trinity is not of the Truth and also to Tovia Singer in his article on the Trinity for having a lack of a gracious attitude: see original article here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-tovia-singer-on-did-authors.html?m=1

To Sam Shamoun, years ago when I didn't tell you I was Answering Judaism after the brief time we didn't speak with each other, forgive me for not telling you who I was and deceiving you.

I also apologise to those whom participated in watching the debate with savedbybaptism back in 2013 that I had studied the Trinity in depth on the Trinity whereas I mostly listened to Sam Shamoun (and James White and Anthony Rogers). (More will be added when I can find what I said in the recording).

Answering Judaism

Thursday 2nd March 2017. There was a time in 2012 I mocked homosexuals on Paltalk in the room and I was rebuked by bearbronxbud (I think that was his name) . For this I apologise for the mockery I engaged in. Although I believe homosexuality is wrong, mockery is not the right attitude and I repent and say sorry.

Tuesday 3rd of April 2017. Although angelsswingss and I have put this behind us, I still need to apologise publically for it. In 2012 I was part of her room as an admin. The issue of Mormonism came up in the room which I have offered to  talk about Mormonism in my room (You should never advertise your room in another room on Paltalk, it is bad etiquette) but while it was touch on briefly, I then used the my room to do impressions ( I also did impressions in angelsswingss room too.) which was the wrong thing to do and for that I apologise of that deception. There is an accusation of heresy but that will be penned another time.

Sunday, 29 January 2017

Beauty and the Beast: A Christian's comments

Beauty and the Beast is one of the films that came out of an era known as the Disney Renaissance, a time where Disney films were once again at their peak and prime, with other animated films measured to that standard at the time and some argue Tangled or even Frozen started a second renaissance at Disney but I digress.

Beauty and the Beast was nominated for an Academy Award, won a Golden Globe for best picture, garnered positive reviews upon release and was a box office hit. To this day it is remembered fondly by many around the world, praised for it's animation, songs and writing, myself included.

In 2014, a live action remake was announced and set for release this year.

Now why am I talking about Beauty and the Beast in this article? Well, Emma Watson is the main lead and from I gathered from other people, is herself a strong feminist voice.

A cover on Total Film caught my attention on the 28th of January 2017 when I went to the shopping centre and I saw it's cover had the film in question (Do a google search on the poster and you'll see it.

What specifically caught my attention were the words underneath, which said "Darker, Smarter...Relevant".

I posted a comment on the Midnight's Edge Facebook group asking if the caption itself was insulting to the original film and the response, it surprised me by how many comments I got, some disagreed and some agreed.

One last thing I will say, this is not to attack Emma Watson as an individual. She has said she is a fan of the 90s Beauty and the Beast and I am willing to take that comment at face value. However, I feel she is missing the point entirely of the original film, especially from what I gathered from the people at Midnight's Edge, namely that Emma Watson having some requests, namely no flat shoes, no twirls because it means it makes her (I think she is referring to Belle) submissive, or wear large gowns and corsets. I could cringe at those decisions.

I also looked at an article last year (And posted that to Midnight's Edge too). You can find the original article here: http://heroichollywood.com/belles-backstory-changed-beauty-beast/

Here are Watson's comments:
"In the animated movie, it’s her father who is the inventor, and we actually co-opted that for Belle. I was like, ‘Well, there was never very much information or detail at the beginning of the story as to why Belle didn’t fit in, other than she liked books. Also what is she doing with her time?’ So, we created a backstory for her, which was that she had invented a kind of washing machine, so that, instead of doing laundry, she could sit and use that time to read instead. So, yeah, we made Belle an inventor."

Here's the thing, Belle reading books was there for reason.

Belle loved reading, it was a form of escapism but more than that, it gives the viewer an insight into one of her goals. She was seeking a better life and someone to love her for her rather than mould her into something she is not. Her words in one of the songs in the film was "There must be more than this provincial life."

Let us also look at the contrast between the Beast (called Adam in a CD-ROM triva game that came out years later: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/faq) and Gaston.

First, Gaston. He is an egotistical, narcissistic individual who loves the attention the townsfolk give him. He sees Belle as a potential wife, but not really someone whose feelings who he cares about. Belle even rejects his advances on him and shows him the door. Gaston grows increasingly more selfish and more of a viable threat, especially when he threatens to throw Belle's father Maurice into an asylum unless he agrees to marry her, which makes Belle be repulsed by him even more. Eventually this leads to Gaston's destruction when he makes the final assault on Beast's Castle and tries to kill the Beast but ultimately fails. His one consuming passion turns him ironically into a monster with violent hatred toward the Beast.

Second, The Beast himself, who started out as a selfish and spoilt prince who turned an old woman away at the door, who turned out to be a beautiful enchantress, who curses him into a chimera and the servants are transformed into household or castle objects, but still sentient. The Beast would have to learn to love and be loved in return, lest he remain a Beast forever, both he and the servants losing their human sentience.

When the Beast encounters Belle and her father, He is unkind and cruel. He forces Maurice to be imprisoned, to which Belle agrees to be the Beast's prisoner in exchange for her father to be free This ties into later on because eventually the Beast does regret separating Belle from her father.

The servants do their best to bring Belle and the Beast together but specifically the Beast himself learns to come out of his zone so to speak. What finally brings him to his senses is rescuing Belle from the wolves, with he and Belle chiding each other for their actions. Belle does something that the Beast never had happen to him, have someone challenge him on his behaviour.

The Beast does begin to change his ways, why? Belle wins him over by her conduct. Her compassion and selflessness starts to rub off on him and he in return reciprocates.

When the Beast starts to actually care for Belle, he doesn't try to change her or mold her, but instead gets know her and what makes her tick so to speak. He even gives the library to Belle, knowing that she has a love of literature (He wanted to do something for her and it was suggested to him the library as an idea from Lumiere and Cogworth) and after the dance when Belle looks into the magic mirror, Beast reluctantly, but willingly releases Belle from her captivity and sends her to rescue her father.

When Gaston attacks, Belle returns and the feelings between the two are strengthened, Gaston is defeated and the spell is broken. The Beast has finished his journey.

Belle's selfless and caring nature wins the Beast over and changes him, both on the inside and back to normal on the outside.

It's clear Gaston was not interested in Belle's feelings whereas the Beast eventually understood what would make Belle happy and learnt to be less selfish and he could be someone to care for and cherish her rather conform her into someone shallow, like the triplets who sigh at the mere sight of Gaston and have no interest in him as a person.

This reminds me of 1 Peter 3:1 (though not exactly the same) where wives are to win their husbands over by their conduct. I am not saying Beast and Belle are Christians, I am saying that Belle doesn't score cheap points with the Beast and go down to his level, but rather through her actions and words, he is brought to her level, becoming a better man for it.

David Pawson even has stated that God is more interested in character than achievement, that he' rather have a conscientious taxi driver than a careless missionary.

The comments by Emma Watson sadly miss the point of the original Beauty and the Beast Disney classic entirely and to be honest there is no need to make Belle an inventor, (though there is nothing wrong with the idea in and of itself), but in the context of the story, It's Belle's character rather than her achievements that gets the audience invested in her. Sadly, the remake in light of Watson's requests if they are real requests, may destroy the remake. We'll have to see when it comes out.

A woman of good character (specifically biblical standard of good) is someone who is the strong woman and empowered, the feminist regardless of their intentions is not helping the cause of empowering women.

Jesus Christ is the one who elevates men and women, not through violating and breaking the gender barriers, but strengthening their roles as men and women.

Answering Judaism.

Saturday, 14 January 2017

The Abomination of Desolation: A response to Walid Shoebat 10

Here is the final part which had been left alone for a while.*

One thing I will say about the two senses before we carry on, It was explained to me by Keith Thompson of Reformed Apologetics Ministries the following regarding them. He said to me that their actual espoused views are mutually exclusive with the alleged other view Shoebat speaks to.

But anyway, let's carry on:

"To answer this question, they have no other method but to go to the Church fathers and twist everything. For example, they use Clement when he explains:
But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…” (The words of the Lord from the bread of life discourse “Eat My flesh and drink My blood,”)
“The flesh figuratively represents…”? Is Clement saying that the Eucharist does not represent the real essence of Christ? Then they even present Clement’s Paedagogus Book 1, chapter 6 “Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbolswhen He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise …”
So is Clement explaining “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood” strictly as a Metaphor?
And Clement even concludes the chapter with this:
“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk … by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.”"

This doesn't prove transubstantiation, at all. If Clement is speaking figuratively which he would be as the philosophy of accidents didn't exist in his day, then Shoebat is believing in a false teaching. Even if he didn't believe it was merely a symbol, no credence is given to transubstansiation to begin with.

"One can also find Tertullian “and that flesh which was the “bread given for the life of the world,” He also stated “Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, We ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)
Are the apostolic-succession churches dismantled by these words from Clement and Tertullian?
Hardly. It is here that the trickster avoids the ancient “two senses” in interpreting. Irenaeus, around 180 A.D., close to the time of the disciples of Jesus says of the Eucharist “For as the bread, which is produced from the earth [grain], when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common breadbut the eucharist, consisting of two realitiesearthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.”
While the context is the “resurrection” of the believer the bread is “no longer common bread“.
This is using the proper scriptural method: the two senses."

Even if we grant the church Fathers used the two sense interpretation, it does not justify the later Roman teaching on the Eucharist which Shoebat is so keen to proclaim in his paper. It is still a metaphor and not literally consuming Jesus' body and blood. You cannot use the two senses interpretation to justify pagan transubstantiation. It's not even what Tertullian had in mind when speaking on the Lord's Supper. The treatise in question is addressing gnostic objections to the flesh of Christ, not the nature of the Lord's Suppers nature.

As for Irenaeus, he is dealing with sacrifice and oblations, that those offered to God in sincerity and purity are accepted but those who do it as an external ritual without being clean, their sacrifices are an abomination. He even says that Jews (unbelieving of course) Gnostics or heretics insult God by their offerings. See the section in question for yourself: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103418.htm

Irenaeus doesn't address the nature of the Lord's Supper as being that of Romanist Transubstansiation, even in the state found within the chapter.

His point in the chapter is how a Christian is to rend his service to God, that gifts to him should not be withheld and should be given without intermission.

The subject of Origen and his homily Lord Willing shall be looked at another time.

"This mystery regarding “this is My Body” has various levels of meanings. The Logos (The Word) became flesh and so did the Eucharist. We also have the Word (Christ) and the Word of God (the Bible). Origen says “… but we are said to drink the blood of Christ not only in the rite of the sacraments, but also when we receive his words, in which are life, as he himself …” and is why Clement said “…Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk …”
Origen, Clement and Irenaeus also saw the word of God in the Communion and the Communion in the word of God. They did not see Christ merely in the consecrated bread and wine, but also the communion of believers and the word of God. The believers were not the only ones who resemble the body of Christ, but that Scriptures and the Body of Christ, both, resembles the Body of Christ.
They used both senses in interpreting scripture, the allegoric and the literal approach that is so much removed today from the modern pulpit of the disco-tech style charismatic churches while dressed up in Hawaiian shirts with multiple colors looking more like an Antichrist with hyacinth blue, sulfur yellow and fiery red."

No Christian would deny that Christians are referred to as the body of Christ, that is indisputable, not to mention Jesus is with the communion of believers and he is the word of God. But how does this prove transubstantiation?

Also what is your point when you keep pointing to supposed churches that dress in hawaiian shirts? How is this relevant to addressing anything to do with the abomination of desolation. BTW, Wearing a suit doesn't make your point more credible or less credible. Many teachers be they David Pawson, John MacArthur etc wear suits but that doesn't make them credible. What does make them credible is their exceptional theological depth and insight. I am not saying that you can automatically wear anything as a Christian, there are standards of dress code for Christians but someone wearing a Hawaiian shirt is hardly in violation of scripture, but it's not the sort of thing I would wear personally in church.

Also, not to defend the crazy stuff that comes out of charismatic churches, I am sure they will take issue with Shoebat's comments.

"Tricksters are recognized from their isolating everything, from verses to context, metaphor from literal,  they isolate the stone from David, and even from God, as only if one of these was the originator and the true killer of Goliath.

The fathers used metaphor, the stone was also Christ, that David used Christ to strike Goliath, that David was not the sole instrument of the judgment of God against Goliath, that God Himself was the originator where David through Theosis (the process of being one with Christ) became one with God and through God’s Son also kills the Antichrist. David also resembles Christ Who will return to accomplish the striking of the serpent’s head, who is both the devil and antichrist. This is why we see in Revelation 11-12 not only the Church and Israel, but also Mary and then the saints in Zechariah standing with Christ on the Mount of Olives. In Revelation 11:19 we see the “temple” of GOD being opened, and within it is the “Ark of the Covenant” then in Revelation 21:22 “And I saw no temple therein. For the Lord GOD almighty and the Lamb are the temple thereof”. This clearly debunks Ezekiel’s temple being rebuilt by some group calling itself The Temple Institute. The lazy replaced Christ, Ezekiel, Joel, Daniel and Paul with a modern outfit, elevating the Jewish system made obsolete over Christ. This in itself is an abomination to God and I ask Christ for forgiveness."

A Protestant or even a Messianic Jew would not disregard literal and metaphorical being linked period, but would call into question where and when it is being used. This is purely a caricature on the part of Shoebat.

Putting aside the fact that I have said I don't believe that an organization builds the temple such as the Temple Institute or any organization with a similar function, No one would disregard David being a foreshadowing of Christ, at all.

I have already said The woman in context is not a reference to Mary, It is a reference to the church and redeemed Israel.

I would recommend seeing Keith Thompson's video on Revelation 12 for more information:

Before anyone asks, Yes, Mary is part of the church, but that doesn't validate automatically the interpretation put forward by Shoebat.

Also, a belief the third temple being literal or spiritual is a debatable issue and even if one holds that the sacrifices were instituted, it still wouldn't undercut Jesus Christ. I have already given my points on the third templein previous papers so I won't be going over that again in my response to Shoebat.

"John describes, like Ezekiel taking a measuring rod to measure the temple: “And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.” (Revelation 11:1-2).
Yet this is clearly and primarily the Church (who see the woman, Mary, as the crowned queen) since “the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent … And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Revelation 12:14,17)"

Where is Mary a crowned queen in Revelation 12? Can you show that, Again, the passage refers to The church, including Mary as a whole, it is not isolating Mary or singling her out.

"“the court outside the temple” are the Christians that were not protected, but will be subject to Satan during that same time (Revelation 12:17). Antichrist does not rule the entire globe and his center is in Asia Minor."

Anti-Christ does not rule the whole globe? Lord Willing I would need to look into this point more but what makes you think he doesn't rule the entire globe based on that reading?

"It is only when I discovered all this, how to be as wise as a serpent and try to be innocent, confess my sins continually to another who is in authority, receive Christ in the communion, that I could finally say “I was blind, but now I see”.  The disciples forgave as Christ forgives because they were one with Christ. Christ clearly said to the disciples “whatever sins you forgive it shall be forgiven” while the trickster uses a truth will jot “only Christ can forgive sins”. While this is true, no Christians denies it whether apostolic succession or not, Christ is to be our one and absolutely unique mediator who alone can reconcile us to the Father. But this is also ignoring that such a truth has a system that the trickster isolates. Indeed Christ is the only mediator and sin forgiver, yet He told the disciples that He will use them, the first priests, as the mediators between the sinner and Christ “whatever sin you forgive [on earth] it shall be forgiven [from heaven]”."

See the previous article on James 5:

I'll link to these again:

Answering Judaism.

*21st of January 2017. Update, Lord Willing there will be an addendum to this article in the future. When it will happen I don't know.

Monday, 5 December 2016

Roles of Women in the church: What can they do?

This is a controversial issue that indeed faces us today and definitely need to be addressed. These things cannot be just left to the wayside as a side issue but are fundamental to the function of the church and of the Christian way of life.

Leading the church

An issue that really causes division among many people is the issue of women being pastors or vicars.

Let us look at 1 Timothy 2:8-15:
"8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control"

Most people are offended when women are not permitted to teach, but this is not meant to be a chauvinistic statement at all, it is for the women's own protection considering in the context of the passage the serpent deceived her and she succumbed first to him, then Adam succumbed afterward.

Also, Matthew Henry says regarding the verse: "According to St. Paul, women are not allowed to be public teachers in the church; for teaching is an office of authority. But good women may and ought to teach their children at home the principles of true religion. Also, women must not think themselves excused from learning what is necessary to salvation, though they must not usurp authority. As woman was last in the creation, which is one reason for her subjection, so she was first in the transgression. But there is a word of comfort; that those who continue in sobriety, shall be saved in child-bearing, or with child-bearing, by the Messiah, who was born of a woman. And the especial sorrow to which the female sex is subject, should cause men to exercise their authority with much gentleness, tenderness, and affection.".

There is hope for the woman in this passage for she will have the responsibility of raising up another generation of godly seed for the future despite not being allowed in a position of authority.

Let us also take a look at Romans 16:
"16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant[a] of the church at Cenchreae, 2 that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well."

Phoebe is often misused as an example of a leader of a church or a woman being allowed to teach mixed congregations, but this is not the case. Just reading the context, Phoebe is not indicated in the context to hold an office of pastoral ministry, but rather is an assistant to the elders (Granted if there is pastoral ministry for women, it would be to other women and not to mixed congregations).

John Macarthur, when he was asked about a deacon at his church said in an interview said: "In the first place, we don’t…it’s not an office…it’s not an office. It’s not a position. We simply recognize that some women serve in remarkable and wonderful ways in the life of the church. Like Phoebe in Romans 16 who was a woman who was called a deacon. You can take the “ess” off it. There are women in the New Testament…the word “deacon” means servant. We have hundreds of women here who are servants of the church. They don’t have authority over anybody. They don’t meet, they don’t make decisions, they don’t have committees. They don’t have councils. They aren’t given problems to solve. They serve."

Notice again, the person did not hold the positions that MacArthur listed but rather, they only had any task providing assistance to the church.

Regarding the subject of Galatians 3:28, this verse out of context is often used as a justification of women holding positions of teaching mixed congregations or being elders in a church. But this is what the verses say:
"23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.".

When read in context, it is referring to our equal status before God. Not only are men and women equally sinners under God's wrath, they have equal standing in Christ when they are adopted into the family of God. Also to point of fact it is talking about there being one in Christ and there is no difference as to OUR SALVATION. The context doesn't allow for us to say that men and women can hold equal offices within the church.

A beautiful way David Pawson summed this up was "We are of equal value and dignity in God's sight, but with different roles and responsibilities". We still have male, female, Jew, Gentile, free and slaves, their distinctions are not blurred.

Women are allowed to teach to other women, in particular the older women teach the younger in the Book of Titus (2:3-5), particularly in the context of teaching them submission to their husbands as well as caring for their children and other tasks which we will get to later.

It is possible they can teach biblical teaching to women congregations, but not to mixed congregations, However I don't think this is common within the early church itself. You do have Priscilla (a woman) and Aquilla speaking to Apollo to educate him in the faith, but this is not to do with congregations and thus was acceptable. This was private and more evangelistic than anything else.

1 Corinthians 14:34 in the context of the chapter says:
"26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.
29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.
34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.
39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way."

The context doesn't suggest that a woman should not speak at all, it is referring to a specific incident. Notice in verse 39 both men and women are encouraged to speak in tongues or prophecy in church, so it is clear that a woman is only to be silent in a specific matter rather than be silent in all cases. The women were probably forbidden to speak during the service itself but were allowed to pray and prophecy. The context can also refer to women not being in a position of authority.

None of these texts prove that women can hold a position of teaching ministry in the same way as men at all. I do not think that women are to be pastors or vicars, but that doesn't mean they are not they are useless. Older Women do have their roles in the church to instruct younger women. What I can say is, is that they can agree they can serve as deacons within the church themselves.
I leave you guys to study the scriptures to study what I am saying and check with the scriptures,

Women in the workplace?
This is a difficult and also a sensitive issue. This really depends on a number of factors. We read the following in Titus 2:
"3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled."

Women have a responsibility to to manage the home and the children while their husband is away. They are to look after the home and maintain it, it is their primary function. Rebekah Merkle has made the point that she isn't saying a woman's place is in the home but that a woman's PRIORITY is the home. I suggest buying her book Eve in Exile for more information if you have a kindle, it's a book that is a must read for men and women.

As for women being at work, this would not be possible if they have children and a house to run (Unless it was self employment but that's another issue and should be prayfully and through study be something that the Lord wills them to do). But even without children and a husband, It is worth calling into question the motivation of the woman? Why?

Feminism is DESTROYING family life, They see housewives as oppressed, backward, held back and not being used to full potential. Feminism is eroding the family unit and trying to disparage the idea that women should be housewives. 

Both Britain and America essentially are making women selfish (men also are being made selfish for different reasons which Lord Willing I'll comment on in the future).

There is a common trend in fiction to portray marriage as a miserable experience, including programs like Last of the Summer Wine (a program which is hilarious aside from the first two seasons BTW if you haven't checked it out). 

Men are often not allowed to go out and have some space and that the wife is sucking the marriage dry. There is also this common fallacy that somehow marriage robs men and women, namely with a common phrase "If you marry it's the end of your life" when nothing could be further from the truth. 

The Christian woman's priority is to look after the home, the Christian man's is to work and provide. 

As for women working, this is a controversial issue. In some cases maybe perhaps a woman can work, but in a marital situation it's not possible.

We have to be very careful not to give ammunition to the feminist to propound their vile heresies. One thing to keep in mind is concession on a particular point is not necessarily a ground to bolster a position. One example would be acknowledging that Mary did NOT present a sin offering but pointing out it does not bolster the position of the Roman Catholic on the subject of Mary being sinless as other passages in context demonstrate otherwise. Likewise, any affirmation of women having a job of some kind is not good enough to automatically prove feminism to be right, again, other passages in context would demonstrate otherwise.

A particular type of career also depends on another factor, that is assuming women can be in the workplace. It must be a position where she is NOT usurping authority over man, nor should it be a position where a man is allowed to tread.*

Such examples of women being in a place where only men are to tread are the army, police, the political realm (being a translator is an exception), running the courts, construction etc. These positions are out of bounds to women, despite what the feminist will tell you. A computer based job is possible depending the context it is in, along with perhaps writing, composing and arranging music etc. The list of jobs women could do is long but at the same time limited. If it places them in a situation where they run the risk of having a job that is applicable only to a man, they should avoid it.

Stunt work in film is controversial and it may have some issues, considering men and women have different bone and muscle structure and are suited for different contexts. This is something to keep in mind should any man or woman desire to go into Hollywood. This problem may not be present in voice acting as the only thing that really is used are voices, occasionally using the body to assist them getting into the role.. However, whether a Christian should work in Hollywood is another matter.

There is a case in the Old Testament where you do have women hard working, but we must keep in mind that we should not see this as a pretext for female employment and the context I am referring to is Ruth in the field with other women, working under Boaz away from the men. We must go back to verse 22 of Chapter 1 for the context:
"22 So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabite her daughter-in-law with her, who returned from the country of Moab. And they came to Bethlehem at the beginning of barley harvest."

Ruth then goes to the field to glean in chapter 2: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ruth%202

Read it carefully and you'll see the following:
1. Ruth is instructed to stay with the women who are in the field
2. Boaz instructs the men not to touch her
Ruth is granted some protection by Boaz while working with the women in the field. She is granted safety during her time that she is partaking of the harvest.

Again, we must be careful not to assume this is a pretext for women to be in the workplace. Nor is this a pretext for the feminists to jump up and down for joy.

Proverbs 31 is a context used by both sides of the debate, referring to a virtuous wife:
"10 [d] An excellent wife who can find?
    She is far more precious than jewels.
11 The heart of her husband trusts in her,
    and he will have no lack of gain.
12 She does him good, and not harm,
    all the days of her life.
13 She seeks wool and flax,
    and works with willing hands.
14 She is like the ships of the merchant;
    she brings her food from afar.
15 She rises while it is yet night
    and provides food for her household
    and portions for her maidens.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
    with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
17 She dresses herself[e] with strength
    and makes her arms strong.
18 She perceives that her merchandise is profitable.
    Her lamp does not go out at night.
19 She puts her hands to the distaff,
    and her hands hold the spindle.
20 She opens her hand to the poor
    and reaches out her hands to the needy.
21 She is not afraid of snow for her household,
    for all her household are clothed in scarlet.[f]
22 She makes bed coverings for herself;
    her clothing is fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the gates
    when he sits among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them;
    she delivers sashes to the merchant.
25 Strength and dignity are her clothing,
    and she laughs at the time to come.
26 She opens her mouth with wisdom,
    and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.
27 She looks well to the ways of her household
    and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children rise up and call her blessed;
    her husband also, and he praises her:
29 “Many women have done excellently,
    but you surpass them all.”
30 Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain,
    but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
31 Give her of the fruit of her hands,
    and let her works praise her in the gates.

This is likely to be a case where a woman is able to make some money on the side, while at the same time managing the home, but her job as one to manage the home while the husband is away is the PRIORITY. She never neglects her duty as a wife or a mother. If she did neglect those things, I sincerely doubt the husband would praise her or the children call her blessed. Managing the home is a God ordained task for the Christian woman, just as earning income and being the provider is the ordained task for the man. 

Furthermore, It is important to note that the woman selling certain items is NOT a full time position that is a detriment to her family, with the addition of actually making clothes and bedding for her household and possibly clothes for others. She appears to have a form of self employment, but that is anachronistic and tenuous at best.

There is also the caring for the poor, which can either inviting them into the house, going to them out of the house, or a mixture, but once again NEVER to the detriment of her house.

A housewife must NEVER put herself in a position where the home is neglected, which a full time job may cause her to do. 

A single woman possibly may be free to pursue a career, but NOT for selfish ulterior reasons. I would however say the woman should and MUST seek the Lord's will and study the scriptures before considering it, lest she fall to ruin and disqualification. If the Lord calls her to be a housewife, there isn't to be a selfish motivation such as being lazy or self indulgent. Being lazy and hating work is NOT a reason to be a housewife, but being a vessel God can use to bring children to worship him is a good reason to be a housewife, not the only one but still a good reason. The character of a holy woman in the household may also be inviting to the person who is invited, what hospitality have they received from you they will think, assuming the woman is properly looking after the home.

The man also should not have selfish reasons for either working or attempt to get out of work by being lazy, but that's an issue I won't address here. Comments on Christian work ethics have been addressed here by me here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/christian-work-ethics-how-to-behave-in.html

It is important to realise why children need mother at home while father is away.

Truth be told, both parents are needed in order to keep a family alive and actually work.

The women relieve the responsibility of looking after the home from their husbands, caring for the children and raising them. The men who work are providing for the family and as such need to make sure not only that the income they have is sufficient, but they also spend time with the wife and children as well.

A marriage like this is essential in raising up godly seed. I have already mentioned 1 Timothy 2:11-15 but not only this, fathers need to raise their children.

As David Pawson has pointed out "For the man job first, for the wife, relationships first".

The feminist in their zeal tries to uphold women's rights at the expense of men's rights, at least in the radical circles. Nevertheless, feminism as pointed out destroys the family unit and does more harm than good.

Chauvinism is just as bad which I can agree with the feminist on, but I don't see feminism as something that a Christian should embrace, even if there are points of agreement.

It's like trying to embrace Muslims as worshipping the same God as Christians when they have major doctrinal differences despite any common ground they share with us.

One thing I will say is this, A woman who seeks a job is NOT placing herself as under the head of a man like a husband. The husband is her head, not the employer. The employer is in charge and is the head of an organization, but he or she is not a head like a husband is to a wife.

I work for a pool company and there was a girl who worked there this year during the summer and she was hardworking. She went back to university when the summer was over and will return at the time of this writing for a little while near the end of this month, but I digress.

My employer was not her head as a husband is to his wife. The leadership he and his father had over her is the same they have over me, namely employer and employee. The two men are the employers, the girl and I are merely the servants or the employees.

A woman is not violating scriptural headship if she is working for an organization. whether she be single or married (Even if it were possible for a married woman to have a career, she is not placing herself under a different head in a marital sense.)

Shame of being a housewife?
This is for those who have been disparaged by many feminists and nay sayers and accused of being backwards and old fashioned, let me say this to you, You are not those things. If anything, you are in a noble position and God has put you there to raise up Godly seed for his glory and purpose.

Think about it, Training your children in the Gospel and to live for Jesus, That is a great privilege that should NOT be shunned. You have an opportunity to raise up children who in their adult years will be a godly influence in their workplace or home of their own, or God even may raise up a potential missionary he can use, depending on what his will is.

Don't EVER let anyone try to bring you down.

If you are told "You should be supporting your husband with a job", shrug it off. God has called you for a purpose. You and your husband need each other. Paul Washer's wife Charo Washer has had to suffer many comments from others regarding her choosing God's will for her. See the following talk or read the transcript here: http://illbehonest.com/recovering-biblical-womanhood-paul-washer

The feminist is trying to undermine and destroy marriage in the name of women's liberation. However, they are self serving and are actually doing a lot of damage to today's women. Even the feminists who have a noble intention such as fighting against the oppression of women and fighting for their rights run the risk of being unbalanced.

While it may not be necessarily bad for women to have a job, it is wicked and detestable to disparage marriage the way the feminists do. Don't be foolish enough to buy into their bondage. They portray marriage as a prison that women are not free to do what they want, which is again is a horrible caricature of marriage that the world loves to spread. If the Lord has called you to be a housewife, just ignore the naysayers. As the saying goes "Go with the wind, even if it's against the tide".

No, men and women may not get what they want in marriage, but that's life (And self indulgence is not an excuse for celibacy either), marriage is self sacrificing, it requires both partners to pursue each other in holiness and righteousness.

It is also hilarious that feminists claim to fight for women to do what they want yet women who CHOOSE to be housewives, not forced but CHOOSE are looked down upon. Can I say hypocrisy much?

Marital Problems
This section requires some background but you'll see where I am going with this.

Back in 1991, there were three cartoons released for Nickelodeon. They were known as Doug, Ren and Stimpy and Rugrats, which itself is the most well known and the longest running of the three despite it's brief hiatus.

There are three couples that are found in the Rugrats which show us three different marriages.

I know Klasky Csupo, the company that created the show were not giving an exposition on what is a true marriage, but hear me out.

We first have Stu and Didi Pickles. Stu has no job and used to work in a lard factory but seeks to be an inventor (A noble profession but he isn't good at it). Inventing is his dream job which he hopelessly chases after, forcing his family to live of benefits presumably. His brother Drew (Who we'll get to soon) even says this in the first movie:
"Drew: You can't even make ends meet now. You got no insurance, no savings, and another kid on the way!

Stu: For your information, bro, I am working on something right now that is going to put this branch of the Pickles family on Easy Street."

Chasing after a dream to the neglect of one's family is not very good, not to mention you have BOTH staying at home as opposed to Stu heading to work.

The other extreme is Drew Pickles and his wife Charlotte. Both of whom have little time for Angelica and presumably have jobs. Charlotte especially in most episodes is often seen on the phone and in a business suit speaking to her assistant Jonathan. Both of them do not make time for Angelica, usually dropping her off at Stu's house to be babysat. 

Charlotte should be at home taking care of Angelica and raising her until she is able to stand on her own and find a husband.

The final example are Betty and Howard DeVille and after just a brief look on the wikipage as well as going into my memory, Betty seems to be the one taking the lead in the marriage, which should not be the case, Howard should be the one taking the lead rather than letting his wife doing it.

While not a perfect analogy, Rugrats certainly gives us an interesting take on different kinds of marriages, ones that are not biblically sound. It is still an interesting contrast to observe even if Klasky Csupo were not intending to give an exposition on what marriage should be.

Submission to the Husbands and Loving of the Wives
This is something that is offensive to the feminists and they often cry foul at this idea, going as far as obliterating marriage altogether, let's take a look.

"22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband."

Here, marriage is to be honoured and kept pure in honour of the Lord, How can this be done when the husband doesn't love his wife? If there is no love, the wife will either submit begrudgingly or be rebellious. There is no sanctification in the sight of the Lord if this is the attitude that is been demonstrated.

Christ is not abusive, it is hypocritical to abuse your spouse when your Lord and Saviour doesn't treat you that way, you can't have it both ways. For a contrast of two marriages, see the following article: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/husbands-love-your-wives-wives-submit.html

We also observe that just as Christ gave his life for the church, his bride, we as men if we are married must be willing to lay down our lives for our wives in order to preserve their lives. Willingness to die for your spouse is important for us men.

We'll also take a look at 1 Peter 3:
"3:1 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you[a] of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered."

Both the men and women have a responsibility to each other, the woman is to submit to and listen to her husband and obey, whereas the man is to love his wife, along with cherishing and protecting her, showing her grace too.

Keep in mind that the braiding of hair itself isn't forbidden for all time, it is referring to a the hairstyle in a context it's used. Braided hair itself isn't evil, but in the context of ancient Greece, it was the hair of the cult prostitutes and the Delphic Oracle. Braided hair divorced from idolatry is fine, as in our culture it doesn't have that connotation. It is an exhortation to women not to wear clothing that makes them look like a pagan when they are not.

As for adornments and the subject of hair, Paul Washer had a very interesting thing to say on it:
"Now, look what it says here. It says, “Not with braided hair, or gold or pearls or costly garments.”

Now, does this mean, as some have interpreted, that a woman can never braid her hair? Well, if you go into the Greek world, you will see some braiding that went on that literally is frightening. The woman looked like Medusa. I am not kidding. They braided hair to the… they would spend days braiding this hair up and it was going all over the place and it looks like snakes coming out of her head. That’s what Satan will always do to a culture.

What he’s talking about here is not that you can’t braid your hair. It’s talking about just the simplicity of it. Not extravagant.

And then there’s gold and pearls or costly garments. Now, what does this mean? Well, I see that the servants of Abraham gave Isaac’s bride some costly bracelets, some rings for her nose, you know go figure. So, that wasn’t treated as an ungodly thing. I think it goes back again to extravagance, extravagance.

And costly garments? No, women should not be preoccupied with spending a lot of money on clothing. But you know what? A wise woman, a noble woman can take a little bit of something and make it look pretty amazing. Remember the Proverbs 31 woman? She didn’t just dress her household. She herself dressed in purple. But it was a frugality, a simplicity." http://illbehonest.com/recovering-biblical-womanhood-paul-washer

I recommend reading the entire article to understand where Washer is coming from.

Offices open to women
This pertains to function in the body of Christ as opposed to the workplace. I have already explained that women should not be leading the church so I need not go over that again. With that said, are there positions that women can inhabit, two I have already given, teaching other women and prophesying. An example of prophecy in the book of Acts would be Phillip's daughters (Acts 21:9). We are not told what they prophesied, only that they had that gift, but nevertheless, it shows that position is open in the New Testament church.

We also do have examples of prophetesses in the Old Testament which includes but is not limited to Miriam, Deborah and Huldah. Isaiah's wife is a possible candidate for being a prophet as well. They may also be evangelists too, spreading the gospel by how they live with proper conduct so that the Way is not blasphemed.

What women cannot do in the church is place themselves in a position where they are teaching a mixed congregation, that is a job for a man.

To go back to Titus 2:3-5, not only would that be instructions to the married women on how to behave, there is also a possible precedent for the old woman to teach the scriptures to the young women and help them. Of course in the marital situation, the woman is under the headship of her husband so they can effectively teach their children just as scripture commands (Deuteronomy 6:7 has a guiding principle for Christians though we are not under the law of Moses).

There are ministries open to women, but they are not allowed to have authority over men. Leadership is male for a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of his body, the church (Ephesians 5:23).

Final words
I implore all who read this not to come away from this article not to just blindly accept what I say. You check out what I am saying with the scriptures, study the issues, study the scriptures and pray about it. Check the words I say with the scriptures and be Bereans.

Answering Judaism.

*This point I need to rethink.

Wednesday, 16 November 2016

The next time someone tries to misuse the Bible to silence those who condemn homosexuality, show them this.

I came across an article recently and it is sadly a very widespread paper found on many sites. I hesitate to respond to it but it has to be done. Impertinent individuals are not worth the attention in speaking to but it's worth dealing with this for the sake of the brethren, especially since it is commonly used against Christians, namely "If this law applies, why not that one?", an argument which is often used as a means to silence Christians and those who do not study the Old Testament are doomed to failure of responding to it.

Here is the article in question:

Basically to give a summary of the article, it is asking an orthodox Jew by the name of Dr Laura Schlessinger a few questions, but it's hard to know whether or not it is silly or serious, but in any case, it has been used by many, including one of my own family members who shall remain anonymous.

Let us be clear on this.

I have said in the past that only the moral law minus the death penalty applies to us, however, there is a better perspective and I can sum it up like this to paraphrase Keith Thompson, "Anything from the New Covenant ratified by the apostles is to be obeyed". See Keith's video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrsofbMg8qU

To give a few examples, blasphemy, witchcraft, idolatry, stealing, lying and sexual sins (homosexaulity included BTW) pertaining to morality are ratified in the new covenant and the sins in question should not be committed by Christians, let alone entertained by them as a life to emulate.

The thing that isn't done is putting someone to death under the New Covenant

Also, Not all the laws contained in the article above are ratified under the new covenant. See the following texts:
Lev.1:9, Lev.15:19- 24, Lev. 25:44, Exodus 35:2, Lev. 11:10, Lev. 21:20, Lev. 19:27, Lev 11:6-8, Lev 19:19, Lev.24:10-16, Lev. 20:14

Regarding a menstrating woman, Most wouldn't think to touch them whether they are ignorant of the law or not and most people with or without Christ don't entertain that thought, at least in our culture. I will concede however though there are some disgusting people who practice rainbow kissing (don't ask what that is).

Keep also in mind, childbirth only rendered a mother CEREMONIALLY unclean, not unclean morally. See Leviticus 12:
"12 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, If a woman conceives and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days. As at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. 3 And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 Then she shall continue for thirty-three days in the blood of her purifying. She shall not touch anything holy, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed. 5 But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for sixty-six days.

6 “And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, 7 and he shall offer it before the Lord and make atonement for her. Then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. 8 And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons,[a] one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”"

Some of the laws, namely the subject of unclean animals being consumed, be it shellfish or pigs were only unclean for the Israelites to eat, the prohibition for eating said animals is not given to Christians (Except for the consumption of blood which is prohibited from the time after the flood).

It is also important to note that the commands regarding the regulation of slaves has also been removed. The only injunction for Christians regarding slaves is for slaves to obey their masters and masters are to treat their slaves with respect and not oppress them. If there is an opportunity to leave a life of slavery, a person could seek it.

Also, Modern day Jews don't even keep slaves so that law would not be carried out in this day and age, especially in the Western World.

In Leviticus 1, if you actually read it, it says:
"1 The Lord called Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When any one of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of livestock from the herd or from the flock.

3 “If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish. He shall bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the Lord. 4 He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. 5 Then he shall kill the bull before the Lord, and Aaron's sons the priests shall bring the blood and throw the blood against the sides of the altar that is at the entrance of the tent of meeting. 6 Then he shall flay the burnt offering and cut it into pieces, 7 and the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. 8 And Aaron's sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, the head, and the fat, on the wood that is on the fire on the altar; 9 but its entrails and its legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall burn all of it on the altar, as a burnt offering, a food offering[a] with a pleasing aroma to the Lord."

The animal was to be brought to the tent of meeting (later the temple) to give to God as a burnt offering, I hardly think your neighbors are going to complain about the smell if it is in the temple and even if they did they wouldn't be able to object. It isn't a law that applies to Christians anyway so it is inconsequential.

There is also no injunction or command in the New Testament against mixing seed, cattle or clothing materials either, though the reason they were there were to keep the Jews distinct from the nations. Crossbreeding of a sheep with a cow would be an abomination to this day however, but not two different cows like say a Freisian Cow with a Jersey Cow.

The Sabbath in Christ is Jesus Christ himself, he is the Sabbath rest of Christians. If a Christian wants to keep the Sabbath or NOT to keep the Sabbath, that is entirely his or her prerogative. I cannot legislate whether a Messianic Jew should or should not keep the Sabbath, they are free in God to keep it. See Romans 14 and Colossians 2. If a Christian wants to grow or not grow a beard, that's up to them and they are free to trim the temples in Christ.

I don't know the heart of the person who wrote the letter to Dr Schlessinger, but it's a letter that so many have used as a weapon and it should be put to rest.

I recommend looking at previous papers I wrote for further detail:

Any questions feel free to ask me below.

Answering Judaism.

Thursday, 6 October 2016

The Girl on the Train: a Christian perspective on domestic violence

I wish I held off the release of a previous article on the subject of marriage, This movie had a profound effect on me when it had finished.

I had used Back to the Future Part 2 as an illustration of how marriage should and should not be conducted. See the article for more information: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/husbands-love-your-wives-wives-submit.html

I have said the following in the paper itself

"Paul exhorts men to do the following in Ephesians 5:
25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendour,without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

Here, marriage is to be honoured and kept pure in honour of the Lord, How can this be done when the husband doesn't love his wife? If there is no love, the wife will either submit begrudgingly or be rebellious. There is no sanctification in the sight of the Lords if this is the attitude that is been demonstrated.

Christ is not abusive, it is hypocritical to abuse your spouse when your Lord and Saviour doesn't treat you that way, you can't have it both ways."

There will be spoilers of the film in this article so if you have NOT seen the film, go see it first before reading, but be warned, the movie itself has squeamish moments.

Anyway, I'll give a quick rundown of the film.

Rachel Watson, our protagonist (Played very well by Emily Blunt) is divorced and an alcoholic. She commutes on a train to New York every day and passes by a house, observing that a woman named Megan is cheating on her husband Scott (Whom we learn has been abusive to her). Rachel awakens from a drunken stupor one day with blood on her face and believes that Megan has been killed by her, but can't remember and whenever she was drunk, her husband would fill in the blanks (or so he claimed).

Events unfold showing us that Megan has accepted her abuse as a norm but seeks sexual pleasure from her therapist to compensate for the fact she is unloved. 

Tom Watson, Rachel's ex husband, has marriage another woman named Anna who has had a child with him.

To cut a long story short, Rachel discovers that she is not the violent callous or insane woman she was made out to be, Her ex husband Tom had abused her and drove her to alcoholism and lied to her in order to control her and won't allow her to be trusted by Anna and not only that, Megan was killed by Tom. We also learn that Tom loves sleeping around and was fired from his job (His claim that Rachel was the one who got him fired when it was actually his fault he lost the job. 

Her divorce stemmed from the fact that she couldn't have a child and Rachel at one point, not hurting Anna's child, but actually wanted to just hold Anna's child to feel like a mother.

She has had her marital life torn from her, no baby, no husband, no means of supporting herself (She often stared out of the train to see a perfect couple, her desire to be part of a marriage again).

Tom is killed, both Anna and Rachel are arrested and Rachel is free at the end, presumably with a new job and a new lease on life.

The film never shies away from the horrors of domestic violence and treats the subject matter with respect, as it is a serious issue that plagues many marriages.

With Rachel and Megan, we have both women damaged and ruined by their husband's wicked behavior towards them. I am aware that domestic abuse can happen to men too, but the film nevertheless demonstrates very effectively why domestic abuse is wrong.

Domestic violence can destroy a person's mind, it causes them to turn to drink to dull the pain or become desensitized to the violence that is done to them, so much so that they accept the pain as a part of their life.

It even shows a person seeking love from another source, even if it means engaging in an affair with another person in light of their spouse not loving them.

While the fall has caused women to try and dominate their husbands and be their head, the fall has caused men to be violent or cruel to subdue the women to retain control, the opposite extreme.

Husbands loving their wives and wives submitting to their husbands is the biblical norm that God established and The Girl on the Train gives us examples of what happens when the husband becomes manipulative (Tom) or paranoid (Scott) and becomes cruel towards their spouse, it leads to a spiral in which the wife becomes disillusioned, afraid and broken.

In some cases, it may cause the person in question never to trust someone of the opposite gender again or see marriage is a horrible existence to never be experienced.

Domestic violence is something God hates and the husband will be accountable for the way he treats his family, both his wife and kids. May the Christian men who are married to Christian women be the protectors and leaders of the household but NEVER the dictators of the household. 

As long has the man acknowledges that his head Christ is not abusive, the wife can rest assured that her husband is the head who would never seek to ruin her intentionally.

Answering Judaism.