galatians 2 – Paul writes incoherently

Posted on May 12, 2013 by christopher fisher

In most position papers or letters, individuals write in such a way to focus their words towards a common goal. If someone is writing about how sorry they are for missing a violin practice they would not say:

I am sorry for missing the practice. My car died. I attempted to fix it. I ate a bunch of jelly beans I found in the glove compartment. I called the tow truck, and the entire ordeal lasted 2 hours, making attending practice impossible.

The statement about jelly beans lumped in the middle of the sentence, although it may have happened, does not lend itself to the objective of explaining an apology. Certain individuals, Covenant Theologians and Acts 2 Dispensationalists claim Paul likewise writes incoherently.

Paul starts Galatians with an admonition:

Gal 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,

The Galatians were turning to a different gospel which “was not another”. Paul then goes on to establish his authority on the gospel:

Gal 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul then goes on to explain how he persecuted the church, then was converted through a direct revelation. He also stresses he did not confer with the apostles on this. He stresses this by insisting “he does not lie”. He tells his reader that after 14 years he goes to Jerusalem, and here is where things get real interesting:

Gal 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.
Gal 2:3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

So what is happening here? Paul continues on talking about how certain people were spying on his teaching of liberty and then goes on to say God finds favoritism with no man. He follows that statement with:

Gal 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
Gal 2:8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),
Gal 2:9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

So here is what Covenant Theologians and Acts 2 Dispensationalists think Paul is writing:

1. Shame on you for going to a new gospel
2. The gospel was given to me directly from God
3. I persecuted the church, but was given a divine revelation about this gospel
4. I didn’t talk to even one apostle about it
5. After 14 years, I came to Jerusalem and proselytized some high status non-Christians
6. Those guys didn’t convince Titus to be circumcised
7. Those guys saw the gospel of gentiles was given to me, and the gospel of Jews to Peter
8. James, Peter and John then saw I had grace and accepted us

This is the reading by those who claim Paul and Peter taught the exact same thing. It is extremely forced on the text. Paul is distancing himself from the apostles for a reason. That fact resonates throughout all of Galatians. Paul is not throwing in a random statement about proselytizing high ranking non-Christians, talking about spying liberty, and Titus’ circumcision. Instead, Paul is describing his first encounter with the apostles. The text is clear:

Gal 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.

Who was of reputation? Paul names them later. Watch for any hints of who “those of reputation” might be. The first hint is that without contacting these people, Paul’s ministry might be “in vain”. If Paul failed to convert high ranking non-Christians, would his ministry be in jeopardy? Probably not. If Paul was unable to convince the apostles of what he was teaching, would his ministry be in jeopardy? Yes. Acts 15, describing the same visit, specifically states he is going to Jerusalem to ask the apostles and elders about his teachings. The apostles and elders are “of reputation”.

Gal 2:3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

Why would Paul talk about circumcising Titus with high ranking non-Christians? Was Titus in danger of becoming a Jew without Jesus? Why does Paul mention this if that is the case? That would be like a missionary to Tibet boasting his wife was not compelled to become Buddhist. Instead, those of repute were the same who controlled the doctrine of Christianity. The apostles conceivably could cause Titus to get circumcised. This is further evidence that the apostles were teaching: “It is necessary to circumcise… and… keep the law of Moses.” (Acts 15:5)

Gal 2:4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),
Gal 2:5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

This is setting up the situation described in Acts 15. Paul had to talk to “those of high rank” because he confronted individuals in Acts 15. He hadn’t mentioned his reason for the Jerusalem trip earlier in Galatians; he is telling his reader why he came. Acts 15 explicitly states with whom he intended to speak (“the apostles and elders”).

Gal 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.

Paul goes on to discredit the individuals, stating they did not influence him. Would Paul boast that non-Christians didn’t influence him? This statement echoes Paul’s entire letter in Galatians which distances himself from the apostles.

Gal 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
Gal 2:8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),

This sentence seems incomplete. What happens after they see? Covenant Theologians and Acts 2 Dispensationalists think Paul just writes fragmentary sentences. In reality Paul is using repetition, a literary technique, to reinforce his point. He finally names the people of “high reputation” and tells his reader the final outcome:

Gal 2:9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Paul uses Galatians up to this point to stress his own authority. Adding the list of James Peter and John should silence any critic. Paul finishes Galatians using implications of this authority.

Here is how the first part of Galatians should read:

1. Shame on you for going to a new gospel
2. The gospel was given to me directly from God
3. I persecuted the church, but was given a divine revelation about this gospel
4. I didn’t talk to even one apostle about it
5. After 14 years, I came to Jerusalem and won over the apostles to my teaching
6. The apostles, who still were teaching circumcision, didn’t convince Titus to be circumcised
7. The apostles saw the gospel of gentiles was given to me, and the gospel of Jews to Peter
8. They accepted Paul as a fellow believer and sent them back to the gentiles

The very next verse talks about Peter coming to Antioch and Paul confronting Peter about the gospel when men from James appear. The whole theme of Galatians is about Paul’s dynamics with the apostles: that Paul was distinct, accepted, and authoritative. It is not about him wining trust by proselytizing non-Christians of repute in Jerusalem, dashing in random non-sequitur sentences.

Posted in Church History, Dispensationalism, History, Theology | 10 Comments

how was Paul hard to understand

Posted on May 12, 2013 by christopher fisher

2Pe 3:15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

In Peter’s writings we come across this strange passage. A few things are of note here.
-Paul is teaching something that Peter seems not to be teaching, a teaching unique to Paul.
-Paul has wrote to the very same people before Peter wrote to them.
-Peter refers to this strange teaching being in “all” Paul’s epistles.
-These teachings are hard to understand
-Unlearned individuals “wrest” these teachings to their own destruction (probably he means hell)

So what are these strange teachings? Acts 2 dispensationalists claim that this is Paul’s teachings of Gentile and Jewish equality. But does this fit the bill?

-Does Peter teach it? If not, then why? And how does Peter think the Jewish-Gentile dynamic works?
-Is Paul’s teaching of Jewish-Gentile equality in most or all his epistles?
-Does that teaching cause people to go astray? In what way do they go astray? If destruction refers to damnation, how does a misunderstanding of the Jewish-Gentile dynamic cause one to go to hell?
-If Peter is referring to the Jewish Gentile position, how does that fit with the very next verse:

2Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked;

Peter talks about falling from steadfastness. He talks about the “wicked” and being led away. How would a misunderstanding of Paul’s teaching (of Jews and Gentiles being equal) lead people away from the truth?

The verse just prior to this, also deals with works:

2Pe 3:14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless;

So, Peter goes from talking about being without spot and blameless, to talking about Paul teaching things that are hard to understand leading some people astray, then he talks about being steadfast and resisting the wicked. It would be odd if Peter just lumps in an unrelated segment about Jewish and Gentile equality, something he does not even address elsewhere in the letter, between two verses on works. But this is what the Acts 2 dispensationalists have to force into the text, they cannot say that late in Peter’s ministry he did not teach and understand salvation by faith alone. They would rather “who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!”

Certain Covenant Theologians seem to be closer to the mark. They claim that Paul taught something which people took for lawlessness, salvation by faith alone without needing any works. They claim he was misunderstood, and that individuals do have to do works to be saved after believing. These Covenant Theologians, to their credit, take 2 Peter at face value. It is a shame they do not also take Paul at face value.

The best way to understand 2 Peter is that there was struggle between Paul and the Apostles. Paul taught a new dispensation, one without works and one of individual specific salvation to heaven. The apostles, on the other hand, taught what Jesus taught: a coming salvation on earth through an apocalyptic event. The apostles were still teaching that people should be “in holy conduct and godliness… looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God”. They were looking for “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.”

When Paul teaches, his focus is on salvation by faith alone. When the apostles teach, their focus is on reforming individual’s lives to prepare for the apocalypse.

Posted in Dispensationalism, History, Theology | 3 Comments

bullies and bullying – a government created problem

Posted on May 9, 2013 by christopher fisher

Schools are known for their bullies. Every movie with a child protagonist accurately features this fact of life. Some children who attend public school make it their mission in life to torment others. They might shove other children down on the bus, without provocation. They might harass them in the locker room or gang up against them in class and prod them. Yes, I have been on the receiving end of all these things, I remain bitter and angry when I think back on this. But I do not sit around advocating that the government make more rules, I advocate the government stop creating these situations in which these events are possible.

Why do bullies abound in schools? How about these three reasons (not an exhaustive list):

1. Schools are prisons
2. Schools are Godless
3. Schools are bureaucracies

1. Schools are prisons. What would you call in institution in which individuals were forcibly removed from their homes by government then forced into communion with others whom they did not want to associate? These individuals are then striped of their rights, such as the right to free association, free speech, and due process. Not to mention the right to bear arms. This is known as a prison. Without rights, students are prohibited from speaking (such as proselytizing), they are forced into rooms with individuals that no sane person would freely associate, and they are subject to the summary judgments of principals and teachers. Teacher unions then make it their mission to stop school choice.

As David Henderson puts it: “Teenagers treating other teenagers cruelly is part of growing up when compulsory schooling is part of growing up.” When students have the right to school choice and free association, bullies all but disappear.

If a bully torments or picks on a student and that student lashes out in defense or retaliation, with whom does the school side? I speak from experience. If the victim is lucky, the school will treat them both equally, but usually the aggressor is favored. The reason is, the best I can tell, is that schools are resolute in their official policy of being Godless.

2. Schools are Godless. Schools are officially Godless. They state this fact quite plainly. They teach children that a moral and just God does not rule the world and children are animal byproducts of random chemical happenstance. Teaching children that there is no God is not conducive to civil behavior. This also ties into reason 1 when the Godless educators attempt to double as judges.

3. Schools are bureaucracies. Because schools do not operate with market incentives (as opposed to political incentives) their goals sway towards maximizing tax dollars, prohibiting school exodus, and limiting political exposure. Their rules tend toward bureaucratic nonsense and these rules are only modified when there is a public outrage. See the solider being prohibited from attending his sister’s prom. After public outcry, the policy was immediately amended.

In a free market, businesses tend to focus on profit maximization. Profit in the free market occurs when businesses are run efficiently and the customers are pleased. A public institution does neither. The incentive of a public institution is to be run inefficiently; because people can earn money without producing and still can claim that more funds (and bigger salaries) are needed. If the customer is unpleased, the institution can again claim more funds are needed again. That is why public schools have become black holes for money, although per pupil spending has doubled since the 70s, school achievement has remained flat.

Other bureaucratic anachronisms exist, such as classifying students by age rather than achievement (isn’t the purpose of school to teach, not to babysit?) and giving summers off automatically. These things perpetuate the stagnant environments of school, and force low achieving bullies to remain with their faster learning, brighter peers (not to say all bullies are slow).

So what is the solution to bullies? Privatize the schools. Businesses can hardly please customers when it allows bullies to roam free. In a private market, bullies can be extracted (by institutions that have incentive to do so) and their parents might have to endure financial loss at their children’s reckless behavior. Students would have their rights back and could choose with whom to associate and to what degree they restrain themselves in speech. Atheist or anti-Christians schools would be able to compete with Christian institutions for a customer base (we could see the difference in fundamentalists v. Catholic v. Buddhist v atheist school environments). In a free market, no child would be stripped of rights, parents could choose a Godly education and schools could be run efficiently. One hardly ever encounters bullies at Wal-mart, you have to look to the prisons to find them.

Posted in Economics, Education, Goverment | 3 Comments

making the state irrelevant

Posted on May 7, 2013 by christopher fisher

Politicians consistently attempt to control every aspect of life. They wish to tell us what to eat, what we can and can’t buy, who we can do business with, who we must do business with, and an entire host of other things. But people are not lifeless driftwood to be placed and shaped by politicians, people respond by figuring out ways to bypass the state.

The state imposes copyright laws, underground printers go into production. In the digital age this expands into filesharing. When politicians crack down on filesharing, filesharing goes to distributed networks. When politicians help companies go after individuals on distributed networks, individuals turn to proxy servers. People will always be smarter than the government.

Now, with 3d printing, even more control by the state is deemed obsolete. Everyone who has been paying attention knows that magazine limits could be bypassed by 3d printing, but now a successfully fired gun has been produced as well. Huffington Post reports: “The worst part? It’s legal.”

Fox News does a slightly better job in reporting:

Wilson, who test fired the gun himself, said the goal with the Liberator is to highlight how technology can render laws and governments all but irrelevant.

Better worded by a hostile commenter on Huffington Post:

Marinfan… Cody Wilson is an anarchist and his stated goal is to show that through technology that government will not fall because of violent uprising, but because it will be antiquated and irrelevant.

Technology, not political reform, is mankind’s best chance at escaping the strong arm of the state.

Posted in dinosaurs will die, Goverment, Guns, Standard of Living | 2 Comments

hetty green – why money does not mean wealth

Posted on May 6, 2013 by christopher fisher

In modern politics those who have a lot of money are labeled as wealthy. Countries with a strong currency or a lot of gold are labeled as wealthy. But this gives people a false sense of reality. People need to put wealth in perspective before trying to understand to what extent someone is wealthy.

A prime example is Hetty Green, millionaire and miser:

Hetty Green made a fortune young. She inherited a few million dollars and gained the majority of her money through smart investments. By the time of her death she had amassed over 120 million (2.4 billion in 2012 dollars). Although a millionaire, Hetty spent her time cutting coupons and only wore old tattered clothing. She lived in a small house with worn furnishings. She didn’t pay for heat or hot water. Hetty spent countless hours in court fighting suits that she always lost. Hetty was so stingy she literally left her son’s leg go untreated rather than pay for medical expenses to fix it (some claim she procrastinated and tried home remedies). This resulted in amputation.

There we have it, the life of the richest woman in the world. While money might be able to buy people things that make them wealthy, money is not wealth in and of itself. More importantly than having money is having the things that money can buy. When America sends dollars to China, America gets actual products in return. Who then is richer, those getting pieces of paper or those getting supplies that people wish to use to enhance their own lives?

Likewise, rich people like Bill Gates might be 700 times richer than the average American, but he is not 700 times wealthier than the average American. Bill Gates does not travel in a car 700 nicer and 700 times faster than the average American. He does not wear clothes that are 700 times better made. His bed at home is not 700 times better than the average American’s. His house is definitely not 700 times as big or 700 times as hospitable. Wealth relates to human experience.

Keeping all this in mind, the average American, though having the net wealth 1/700th of that of Bill Gates, lives very close to his standard of living. We live in a world of amazing wealth.

Posted in Economics, History, Standard of Living, Trade | 2 Comments

paul uses extra-Biblical sources

Posted on May 5, 2013 by christopher fisher

2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith;

Paul, in 2 Timothy, mentions two individuals who are not named anywhere else in the Bible. He links these individuals to Moses and informs the reader they “resisted Moses”. Tellingly, Paul was expecting his readers, or reader (Timothy), to know who these individuals were, although not being named in the Bible.

On the face value, we do not know from Paul who these men were. Moses was resisted time and time again in his life. Were these individuals Hebrews (though with Egyptian names)? Where they shepherds who Moses fought off in Exodus 2? Where they part of Pharaoh’s court? Or maybe they were individuals from an unwritten event? The Bible is not clear.

Origen appears to shed some light on this. I say appears because the reference is from a Latin text of Origen’s commentary on Matthew. I have not found a full text of the translation, as there are for the Greek translations. The best source for Origen’s quote is “The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres the Magicians” on google books.

In this Latin text, Origen claims that there was a book of “Jannes and Jambres”. He also mentions a few contemporaries discredit 2 Timothy as a book of the Bible due to the fact it quotes “Jannes and Jambres”.

To those who claim that Paul was given the names Jannes and Jambres as divine revelation, it would be odd that the names line up with other Egyptian magician name (only Jannes) used by Pliny the Elder and later by Origen. Not the mention the fragments of texts bearing their names.

With all that in mind, if appears very likely Paul is using an extra-Biblical source. He accepts this source as accurate enough to use as an illustration for Timothy. Whether Paul believed the text to be an allegory or history is a different question altogether.

Posted in Bible, History | Leave a comment

reason.com overtly admits to wanting more government

Posted on April 11, 2013 by christopher fisher

A reoccurring theme at reason.com is gay marriage. They continually post articles about gay marriage and imply in many news links that they think it should be adopted by all states. Reason.com, however, is known as being a libertarian, near anarchist in their views. When they advocate for homosexual marriage, they are arguing the government create more arbitrary legal statuses, not less. A real libertarian would argue that government should divest itself from the activity of licensing marriages, not create additional legal statuses.

In a libertarian society, people could solve their problems through contracts. This could and would solve custody disputes, inheritances, divorces, and all other problems. But Reason does not advocate this, and in one of their most recent articles, they explain why: it is impractical and legal precedence is again it:

[I]t may just be more difficult to privatize marriage in any common law jurisdiction. At common law, the law of marriage and the family is part of public law — and always has been — even when in the hands of the Church. This is why there was no ‘common law marriage’ in England. In civilian countries, by contrast, family law is private law, and thus much more amenable to manipulation via private law mechanisms. That is why there was ‘marriage by habit and repute’ in Scotland.

What! Since when has legal precedence or civil tradition been a reason that Reason opposes deregulation? Of course they don’t apply their own logic to drugs, prostitution, adultery, socialized medicine, or social welfare nets. No, this only applies when they see the state as a vehicle to champion their pet ideology: that homosexual relations should be normalized to people who do not share their value set. Reason.com shows itself to be just another advocacy group, using the strong arm of the state to push their private beliefs.

Posted in Goverment, Leftists, State Worship | 1 Comment

is God invisible or just not seen

Posted on April 7, 2013 by christopher fisher

1Ti 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Paul tells Timothy some key characteristics of God. God lasts forever, does not die, and is “invisible”. The Greek word for invisible translates literally to “not looked at”. It is a negative of the word “horatos” meaning “looked at”. The contrast can be seen in Col 1:16:

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

In this verse, “that which is seen” is contrasted against “that which is not”. Almost like he is listing categories of the “seen” and “unseen”, Paul begins a list: “thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers “. These may reference just invisible “concepts” or the de facto rulers, angels, and kingdoms of the world. If the latter is correct, Paul’s sentence becomes clear: the things that are unseen and the things which are seen are dependent on the viewer.

Most ancient Greeks had never seen a throne, a ruler, an angel, or the workings of government. However, some did see those things. But to those who had seen rulers or angels the list then becomes a “seen” and “unseen” list. The immediate context is another instance of Paul calling God “invisible”:

Col 1:14 In whom [Jesus] we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

It is interesting to note that Jesus is the “image” of the God “not looked at”. Paul was telling us we could look to Jesus to see God. An image is a representation, particularly a visual representation. Some theologians might want to take this figuratively, that Jesus represented the key aspects of Godhood, but then they would be insisting the Paul was not trying to contrast two ideas. They would have to insist that Paul was mixing metaphors and using puns, as opposed to building on a concept. Paul here was saying that in all characteristics, Jesus showed us who God is.

In Romans Paul contrasts that which is not seen with that which is seen. The mistranslation ruins the flow of what Paul is attempting to communicate:

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Blatant translator bias is revealed in Hebrews 11. In this verse the author is saying people were able to see what was unseen. The negative word of “seen” is used for “invisible”. When translating as “invisible”, it again destroys the flow the author is trying to achieve:

Heb 11:27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

This verse would flow much better and be a more accurate translation if it ended: “as seeing him who is not seen”.

God, in Exodus, has a conversation with Moses that is incredibly telling:

Exo 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

God tells Moses that no one can see God, not because he is invisible, but because if anyone does see him, that individual will die. Not to worry, God explains a plan B such that Moses can experience him. God will literally place Moses on a rock, cover Moses with his (God’s) hand, pass by him, uncover him, and let Moses see God’s back:

Exo 33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
Exo 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
Exo 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

Posted in Calvinism, God, Theology | 10 Comments

made in the image of God

Posted on April 6, 2013 by christopher fisher

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Any Christian can cite the fact that man is made in the image of God, however asking those Christians what that exactly means will elicit a variety of responses. Some Christians loath the very concept that mankind is made in the image of God. Norman Geisler shows his loathing by mocking the concept. The title of one of his books is: “Creating God in the Image of Man”. In it he attempts to defend the classical Greek concept of god (immutable, timeless, static and dead).

However, letting Genesis 1:26-27 speak for itself, God creating mankind in “his image” seems radically different than what anyone will ever hear from a pastor. A couple chapters later in Genesis, a very similar statement occurs:

Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Both “likeness” and “image” are the exact same Hebrew words used in Gen 1:26. Both of them are very visual words, used elsewhere to talk about shapes, idols, and other physical forms. It is disingenuous then to claim that mankind is in the likeness of God only because of our intellectual capacity, as opposed to physical form. It is disingenuous to try to explain it away based on other understandings of God (that he is omnipresent or invisible). In that case, we are just assuming omnipresence or invisible is true, that it mirrors our understandings of those concepts, and that it precludes having form.

Is it that hard to believe we physically appear like God? After all, doesn’t a father who has a son want his son to resemble him? Genesis 1:26-27 is telling mankind that we are not God’s hamsters. We have value. God, when he looks at us, sees himself. We are made in the image of God.

Posted in Calvinism, God, Open Theism, Theology | 7 Comments

women during the industrial revolution

Posted on March 11, 2013 by christopher fisher

From Robert Hessen, The Effects of the Industrial Revolution on Women and Children:

The factories were held responsible, by such critics, for every social problem of that age, including… the desire for luxuries… It is a damning indictment of the pre-factory system to consider what kind of “luxuries” the Industrial Revolution brought within reach of the working-class budget.

While reading The Woman Who Toils by Mrs. John Van Vorst and Marie Van Vorst several things become apparent. One, the factory was a liberating experience for many girls. Two, the factory allowed much more than subsistence and allowed women to buy luxuries of which they once did not have access. Three, Thomas Sowell was right in that it was rich, condescending busybodies who created the most problems for the poor. The Woman Who Toils was written by an aristocrat who went undercover as a worker (1903). The condescending viewpoint drips from every page, but that does not mean we can’t learn from her work. She interviews several women, and there is a reoccurring theme:

“Yes; I don’t have to work, I don’t pay no board. My father and my brothers supports me and my mother. But,” and her eyes twinkle, “I couldn’t have the clothes I do if I didn’t work.”
“Do you spend your money all on yourself?”
“Yes.”

Another woman:

“Does your mother work?”
“Oh, my, no. I don’t have to work, only if I didn’t I couldn’t have the clothes I do. I save some of my money and spend the rest on myself. I make $6 to $7 a week.” [putting that amount in perspective, housing per week was estimated by the author at $3]

A third:

“I bet you can’t guess how old I am.”
..”Twenty,” I hazard as a safe medium.
“Fourteen,” she laughs. “I don’t like it as home, the kids bother me so. Mamma’s people are well-to-do. I’m working for my own pleasure.”

The author’s narrative:

I hear fragmentary conversations about fancy dress balls, valentine parties, church sociable, flirtations and clothes. Almost all the girls wear shoes with patent leather and some or much cheap jewelry.

Another clip:

Monday is a hard day. There is more complaining, more shirking, more gossip than in the middle of the week. Most of the girls have been to dances on Saturday night, to church on Sunday evening with some young man. Their conversation is vulgar and prosaic; there is nothing in the language that suggests an ideal or any conception of the abstract. They make jokes, state facts about the work, tease each other, but in all they say there is not a word of value-nothing that would interest if repeated out of its class.

Of course she describes, as well, woman who had to support their husbands, women who were unmarried with children, and crippled children working. But the point is that this factory system was a progression out of poverty. It represented a better life than the farms. People were actually BUYING luxuries. They were buying clothes for themselves, going to parties, and living. This was a marked change from life before.

Here is Hessen, again, writing of the pre-industrial era:

This was written of an age characterized by staggeringly high mortality rates, especially among children— crowded towns and villages untouched by sanitation—notoriously high gin consumption. The working-class diet consisted mainly of oatmeal, milk, cheese, and beer; while bread, potatoes, coffee, tea, sugar, and meat were still expensive luxuries. Bathing was infrequent and laundering a rarity because soap was so costly, and clothing—which had to last a decade or generation—would not last if washed too often.

The factory system liberated men, women, and even children (as was argued before).

Posted in History, Industrial Revolution, Standard of Living | 5 Comments