(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

If I'm telling people what God said, is that ungracious? I believe that you're not giving the historical context of Timothy enough virtue, that you're not looking at it from the perspective of like who Paul was speaking to when he wrote the letters of Timothy. If we look at the... I think he was talking to women. College is considered an institution of higher learning. Where students are supposed to be challenged, their ideas are questioned and to become the best future leaders of our nation. I decided to go to the University of Texas in Austin to find out what the best and brightest of our state had to offer. We hear that our institutions are being infiltrated with feminism, communism, liberalism, atheism, but maybe they have better ideas. I put them to the challenge to see if anyone could prove me wrong. All right, we're here at the University of Texas and we're talking to students about different topics. Right now we're talking about why I believe that women should stay home and the most specific context we've been talking about is a husband and wife. The husband should go out and provide, pay all the bills and the woman should stay home and take care of the children. And we're talking to different students. I'm here sitting with who? Yanny. And are you a student here? Correct. What kind of classification are you? I'm a freshman, undergrad for international relations. And what do you pursue? What kind of a career or future do you pursue with that kind of a degree? I want to be a diplomat. Like a foreign diplomat or what does that mean? Yeah, I want to work in an embassy for the United States. What country would you like to visit? I visited a couple, but I think my main focus would be Latin America, so pretty much any country in Latin America. Maybe Brazil, maybe Chile, I'm still not sure. Are you from that part of the country? I'm from Puerto Rico, but we obviously have Latin American roots. Okay, interesting. So we're here talking today about the idea of women staying home and I do believe that and I want to get people's thoughts, so what do you think about that? I believe that there are multiple reasons why utilizing the biblical context of both the Old Testament and New Testament, it's kind of fallacious and to try to apply that to today's standards. And even if we were, there are multiple examples in the Bible of women who were out and about doing both religious jobs as well as secular jobs. And so I believe that arguing that women should stay at home does not give enough nuance to what the Bible actually says. Okay, so I would strongly disagree. I think the Bible, it has the same truths, whether we're in Old or New Testament, and those truths apply to us today. So to give one verse, and then I'll kind of get your thoughts on this, is in 1 Timothy chapter number 5, the Bible does say, I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion the adversary to speak reproachfully, for some are already turned aside after Satan. So here's one example, and there's many, where the Bible says that women should guide the house. It's talking about them marrying. I can show you a couple other passages, but you mentioned in your perspective, you see this as maybe contrary. There's women about, or there's other situations that maybe I'm not thinking of. So can you talk about something in the Bible that you think is contradicting what I'm saying here? Yeah, so let's look at Proverbs 31. I'm sure you've read of Proverbs 31. It's really famous because it talks about what a noble wife looks like and what she does for her household. So I'm just going to read it. I have it on my phone. You can find it, yeah. I really like this passage, but can I just start reading it? Go for it. Okay, so I'm going to read from verses 12 onwards. It says, she brings him good, not harm all the days of her life. She selects wool and flax and works with eager hands. She's like the merchant ships bringing her food from afar. She gets up while it is still night. She provides food for her family and portions for her female servants. She considers a field and buys it out of her earnings. She plants a vineyard. She sets about her works vigorously. Her arms are strong for her tasks. She sees that her trading is profitable and her lamb does not go out at night. In her hand, she holds this staff. So this is one example in the Old Testament of a woman who worked out of her own earnings and provided for her family. And that is not to say that this applies to every household, right? Every household is different, especially nowadays. Not everyone is Christian, as you know. But even in the biblical context of Proverbs, we see that a noble woman is considered to be able to make her own earnings separate from her husband and to provide for her family. So I definitely agree that this passage is talking about the ideal version of a woman, right? It's kind of called the proverbial wife or proverbial woman. And I have no problem with anything that you said. I'm King James only, so I prefer the text here. But based on what you said, it's saying the same thing in essence. So I'm not really disagreeing with anything you said here. The idea of her going out and planting a vineyard, having a garden, having tomatoes, or raising some kind of even livestock, that's not necessarily what it's saying, but just that similar context, I believe is still in connection with her guiding the house, okay? In the sense that she's still at home raising the children, and then those responsibilities also stem out from it as providing the meals, providing the food, taking care of the house itself by cleaning, laundry, those type of different responsibilities. But if you look in the same passage, because I think this is important, okay? And if you look at verse 11, so you started at 12, okay? So if we start at 11, it says, the heart of her husband does safely trust in her so that he shall have no need of spoil. Now what spoil is, is the idea of extra income. So it's saying the husband doesn't necessarily need to go out and have two jobs, work overtime, or try to get extra income to provide for his household, because his wife is wisely spending the money they have, and in some cases even earning some money on the side, so that the husband doesn't have to work extra jobs, she's actually doing him good. The opposite would be women that are going out, maxing out credit cards, wasting all kinds of money, not being thrifty, basically just living this trophy wife life, and not necessarily doing him good, but doing him evil, causing him to have to go out and work even more, and have to spend more time and effort and energy getting money, getting that spoil. And so I don't think that this in any way contradicts the idea that the husband's still the one going out. Let me give an example, verse 23, her husband is known in the gates when he sitteth among the elders of the land. So the husband's going out and providing, the husband's in the government, the husband's out judging, the husband's doing this work, the wife's home tending to the household, the vineyard, the things that basically are basically about their property. Because especially back then, right, they don't have cars, they don't have necessarily transportation as well, so like if something needs to be done on the farm, oftentimes the wife might be half the one that go out and do that, while the husband's out doing other labor further away, not going to be able to come in. So I don't see this as a direct contrast to the idea of a woman staying home. Based on the two verses I showed you, do you think that that context could actually apply? Or do you still think I'm wrong? Do you think this is kind of saying, no, I think women are going out and getting a job here? See, yes, I would say that I still do believe that based off of the Bible verses that you cited, women still back then would go out and have a job. Not to mention that you're also being kind of disingenuous because in what way would a woman in the modern day not, you know, stay at home and still get some earnings. We live in a world where inflation is like skyrocketed, right? So to apply the moral justifications of like the Old Testament to today where most households are billed to receive two forms of income is really disingenuous. We can't, you know, like look at a family who has both people working and still working paycheck to paycheck, both of them, and say that, oh no, you're doing something wrong because well, the Bible says that, you know, the woman should stay at home. I completely disagree. I believe that it is fair to say that in especially the modern day context, two people working is what generally speaking keeps one household alive. Not to mention that there are also other examples in the Bible of women back then going out and having really important positions, such as Deborah or Miriam, or I believe there's like two other prophets whose name escaped me, but back then, like Deborah especially, was a woman who was married. She was married to Lapidot, if I'm not mistaken, and she had a really important political position. She was the leader of Israel. In fact, I believe that that's what the Bible verse on judges opens up with, that she was one of the leaders of Israel. Well, here's the thing, just to answer a few questions. I don't think that I'm disingenuous, number one, because my wife doesn't make any income at all, and I provide all of the income. So not only do I believe this, I practice it in my daily life. So I don't see how I could be disingenuous at all when I am literally living out what I'm saying. But let's say my wife did have a hobby, have some kind of a side thing, she's making some money in another fashion or form, but she's still maintaining her role as my wife, she's raising the children, she's staying home, generally speaking. Then I have no problem with that. I'm not saying that women should never make money, and there's no context in which that should apply. It's that they shouldn't forsake raising the children, staying home, and guiding the house to have a career. And I think in our society, we see many women doing that, where they're having their kids go to daycare, going to public school, not raising the children, not staying home, not cooking the meals, not doing the laundry, not doing the things of the household, but rather focusing only on the career and allowing other people to raise their children, educate, feed, and do the work that I believe the Proverbs 31 woman is doing. Because if we keep reading this, it's going to talk about she gave the portion of her maintenance, right? She's feeding her household, she's even making the clothing for them to wear, so she's clothing her household. I think all those functions can be done simultaneously, in the sense that she can do all of it, as long as she's not neglecting that primary responsibility of staying home, raising children. If I'm providing for my household 100%, and my wife's staying home, and I believe that, how am I being disingenuous? Because there are people who aren't in positions of privilege, like yourself. You have a job that allows you to do that, but you have to be empathetic enough to think about people who don't have jobs that pay them a living wage. Especially in the modern context, where we have inflation that has skyrocketed. Especially us college students, we probably won't have enough money in our lifetime to buy a house, unfortunately, based on the context of the government. To say that two people working, and I'm not saying that a family should neglect their children, that's not what I'm saying, but if you are able to both protect your children, raise them right, as well as take on the necessities of having a working job, a living wage, that is sometimes, especially now in today's day and age, the work of two people, right? Well, again, I think that we have to look at the idea of, okay, is the households that we have today, is that affordable on a single income? In many cases, it's becoming way more unaffordable, I agree with you. We have to choose what kind of lifestyle we're going to have, right? But there's countries all over this world, and especially since you have a heart for Latin America. I've gone on missions trips to Mexico, and I've been in households where it's a very modest home. In comparison to America, it would be worth very little in a monetary value because it's very modest. I see women staying home and raising children in these homes and being very happy, even though they don't have all the luxuries and all of the afforded benefits of American society, but they're still following that same model. I think it's kind of a faulty premise to suggest that we're granted a certain style of living, and as a result of that, you can't get that based on one income. I know people that make very little money, and in my opinion, $50,000, $60,000 to support a family is a very limited amount of income, but I know people that are doing that, and I don't think that they're being ... It's not that I don't care about them, but at the same time, that woman going and getting a job, making more money, could they have a better house? Yes. Could they have a better car? Yes. Could they eat out more? Yes. But also, it would be a detriment to their child's education. It'd be a detriment to how many children they could have. There would be a trade-off. You can't have it all. You can't have the time with the children, raising them, and the time at work. You're going to pick one, so there's trade-offs to these. I'm arguing that this trade-off is not worth it. That women should follow God's model. They should stay home. They should be raising the kids, investing in the children, taking care of the home. The work that my wife does or a wife does is a lot of money. If they're providing for education, food, clothing, laundry, taking care of the house, all this stuff, if I were to outsource that and to hire a personal chef, a personal person to do my laundry, a personal person to clean my house, do all these activities, personally educate my children, it could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. I can get my wife to do it for free because she has such great value and potential. I'm taking all that potential and value she has and I'm investing it in my children. I believe that those children will be a better product than allowing the government and public school and the world to raise them. I still believe, even if you step away from this, just economically speaking, there's a lot of advantage to the wife staying home. Even if we don't get the nicest house, we don't have a three car garage, we don't have all the nice vehicles and luxuries, we can't eat out as much as often, that our children will be better children as a result of that. I said a lot. Kind of tying back to what I said, do you think that a woman staying home raising her children has the potential or would be better than if someone else or public school is raising them? Do you agree with that premise? I believe that it really depends on the individual family, how the family is structured. We are assuming that everyone that is reading the Bible comes from a two parent household with as many kids as possible, and that, generally speaking, doesn't apply to people today. I would be inclined to say that I would prefer, obviously, that you take care of your children, that you spend time with your children, but especially nowadays, not everyone chooses to have kids. I'm not saying that I personally would not choose to have kids, I want kids, but if someone else chooses not to have kids, I don't believe that I have the moral high ground to preach over them. Also another thing that I wanted to touch on was that in the example of Debra, she had a dedicated career that was really toll taking, it took a lot of time. In Judges 4 verse 4, it reads, Now Debra, a prophet, the wife of Lapidot, was leading Israel at the time. She held court under the palm of Debra between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites went up to her to have her disputes decided. She sent Barak, the son of ... and then it goes into the story of Barak. So we see that she was out and about, she had a political job, and that I'm sure took a lot of time. And she was grown, she was an older woman who was married. I'm not sure if the Bible ever specifies if she had kids or not, but I'm assuming based on the cultural context that she did have kids. So we can see that even in the Old Testament, women could have very important jobs, being a prophet was a full time job back then. It's not in the context of like, oh you just prophesy at the corner of the street, but instead you were a political official. Not to mention that again, as I stated previously, I don't believe that it's the government jobs to raise your kids, but I do believe that because of the context of the economy today, to say that ... let's say Puerto Rico is an example, right? After Hurricane Maria and after the earthquakes, a lot of people moved into the United States, and because the living conditions here are so expensive, most of the time when you move to a different part of the country, both people in the house would have to get a job, because they just can't afford ... they're coming from nothing, coming over here where everything's super expensive, and to merely afford the most minimal of living conditions, I know you tried to make the example of third world countries and how people over there are happier. I would tend to disagree, I believe that if you are here in America, you should strive to have as good of a life as you can afford, as your time can afford, and I don't mean that as an expense of your kids, obviously I believe there's a work life balance that you must manage, but to say that a working household that manages ... for example, let's say that the dad takes morning schedule and the wife takes afternoon schedule, right? I believe that that does not go against what the Bible says, and falls completely disregard to what your message here is saying, like the poster saying, that a woman can't go out and have a job if she wants to. In context of Deborah, the Bible says in Judges chapter 4 verse 5, it says, and she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel and Mount Ephraim, so it's telling her where she lived, and it's saying the children of Israel came up to her for judgment, so she didn't go out into the workplace, actually the children of Israel came to where she lived to talk to her. Additionally, Barak is kind of rebuked by Deborah, because she says, hath not the Lord, in verse number 6, hath not the Lord God of Israel commanded, saying go and draw toward Mount Tabor. So, King Barak was unwilling to go to the battle, unwilling to fight the enemies of the Lord, unwilling to do his job, and when they come under and they ask her, like, what should we do here, she's saying, you're supposed to go. And so, here's the thing, Barak is then punished by God, he's killed by a woman as a punishment and a curse for having rebelled and been weak and not doing his job effectively. This does not show that Deborah had a job outside of the home, went and did some kind of a work, and additionally, the New Testament, because I... Wait, let's go back, let's not jump over, okay, in that battle, who was the one that won the victory for the Israelites? Under who did God... Jail is kind of credited as killing the main general, and the Lord gave, the Lord gave victory to the children of Israel, but specifically Barak died. Under the name of who? Under the guise of who? Because Deborah specifically tells Barak that it was going to be in her hands, that God was not going to deliver Israel in the hands of Barak, but instead in the hands of a woman. Well, it's going to be shameful, obviously, for the times back there. But that woman is jail, not Deborah. Do you know what jail did? She killed, you just mentioned it, she killed Barak. No, she kills the commander of the enemy army, because the enemy army is defeated and the general is led unto jail, she invites him into her home and she takes a stake and she hits it into his temple and she kills him right there on the spot. So the general doesn't get the credit for killing the enemy general, basically jail gets the credit. But this is not Deborah. But who leads the Israelites into battle? Barak. Barak leads the children of Israel into battle. Deborah goes with them at the request of Barak, but Barak is the leader. And here's the thing, this has nothing to do with a woman going out and getting a job. Just like I said, Deborah is going out and she is being, she's in her house and she's being asked for advice at home. The New Testament also does not contradict this and it says in Titus chapter 2, it says the aged women likewise that they be in behavior as become of holiness, not false accusers, not given much wine, teachers of good things, that they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, love their children, be discreet, chase keepers at home, good obedient to their own husbands that the word of God be not blaspheme. So the Bible says that women are supposed to be keepers at home. That's what I have on the board. That's what I believe. And there's no situation where the Bible is illustrating that God is pleased with women going out and providing and getting a job. In fact, it says that men that are not willing to provide for their house, it says if any man provide not for his own, especially for the aid of his own household, he is worse than an infidel. Okay, he's denied the faith and is worse than infidel. So according to the Bible, a man who won't provide for his house is considered really bad. And let's say we had this scenario, okay? Let's say a man forsakes his wife, does nothing. This woman's left stranded. I would never be mad at her for going and getting a job and providing for her house. That's her just basically taking action in a bad situation. But it's not her fault. It's the guy's fault for abandoning her, not providing for her. So I believe that men need to be willing to pay 100% of the bills, take care of their wives, and afford them the opportunity to stay home and to not have to work, to raise the children, to basically be keepers at home, and to fulfill God's perfect, idyllic will in their lives. I don't think there's any contradiction in the Bible, and I think the New Testament's clear here that they're keepers at home. Do you have a New Testament verse here? Acts 16? You can go to Acts 16 for me? Yes. And not to mention that— You'd be in jail. Yeah. Let's go to verse 14, I believe. Sure. Mm-hmm. Or if you want to read from the 13, we can read from the 13. On the Sabbath, we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thera named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart in response to Paul's message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. If you consider me a believer in the Lord, she said, come and stay with me at my house, and she persuaded them. In other words, as it says right there, she dealt in purple cloths, which, in other words, she sold purple cloths, which were really expensive back then, so we can assume that she made a pretty decent income while having a job out in the real world. Yeah. Again, that's the exact same as Proverbs 31, because it talks about her making merchandise and selling it. It talks about her making fine linen and selling it. So it's the exact same scenario. And look, there's... Okay, I guess my question is, how is that any different from a woman nowadays choosing to also earn some of her own income for her family and providing for her family? I think there's nothing wrong with a woman making money. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is if she's deciding to leave the home, not raise the children, not take care of the house, and focus solely on maybe working for a fashion industry or making textiles or doing that work, then I believe that she's forsaking the God-given commandment for her to be a keeper at home. If she's able to stay home, raise the children, and make merchandise at home, make cloth, make linen, and then sell it from her home or sell it even at a market, I have no problem with that. And that's not in contrast with the Bible saying here. Why can't we work while the kids are out at school? You could, but I disagree with public schooling. Okay. That's... Because I think the parents are supposed to educate the children. Have the Bible ever mentioned anything against public schooling? Well, obviously public school is not mentioned directly, but you know what is mentioned directly is that the mother and father are supposed to teach their children diligently. Yeah, because the government didn't have public schooling. Actually, go to this one Bible. There's colleges mentioned in the Bible, but here's the thing. The colleges have been around since, like, the group. Sure. And here's the thing. Public education's not a new phenomenon. I believe that public education, though, is inferior to homeschooling and that the wives should stay home and educate their children. I think that homeschool children, generally speaking, are better educated, they have better morals, and in fact, it protects children from a lot of things that parents would not want to subject their children to in the public school system. The problem is that you're taking the prerogative of the Bible, which you have to take historical context in order to understand and applying to people from today. I want to read this one verse from Jesus Christ. It's in Mark 2, verse 21, which states, No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth to an old garment, otherwise the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins, otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. Now no, they pour new wine into new wineskins. This is Jesus talking to the Pharisees because the Pharisees had a really corrupt way of looking at scripture, especially the old scriptures, right? They were teachers of the law, and law only, and oftentimes corrupted the law in order to further their own prerogative, right? I believe that you're kind of doing that in the modern context because, again, you're not giving grace to the people of today who may need two incomes in order to survive, and who might need the woman to go out and work if the woman chooses to do so. So the fact that you're not giving grace and you're applying this old wine to a new wineskin is very disingenuous and very damaging to households who might need two forms of income. Well, would you argue, again, if the Bible's saying in the New Testament that women should be keepers at home, that's not my opinion, if I'm telling people what God said, is that ungracious? I believe that you're not giving the historical context of Timothy enough virtue, that you're not looking at it from the perspective of who Paul was speaking to when he wrote the letters of Timothy. If we look at the- I think he was talking to women. Yeah, churches in Greece specifically. And if you know anything about Greece at the time, is that especially in the temples of pagan gods, women were out there preaching and doing a lot of pagan acts that I think Paul was trying to warn Timothy about. There's a lot of historical context that you're not applying that might change the way that we're viewing scripture. I think that I do look at the Bible through historical context, but at the same time it doesn't change anything. I believe that there's no new thing under the sun, and that the truths of the Bible are timeless. It doesn't matter what culture or context we even put these truths in, women should be the keepers at home. Women should guide the house. And I don't see a contradiction with Deborah, the proverbial woman, or Lydia, or any of the women that did ministerial work, because it was still, I believe- Or income- Sure, I have no problem with women making money. It was the premise of them forsaking staying home to make income, have a career, have a job. and more profitable. But additionally, I believe it's God's clear commandment. So I don't know that we're going to necessarily agree today, but that's okay. There are other contradictions in the Bible that I could point to. I know that you were talking about- All right, I'll ask you that. Show me one contradiction in the Bible today. Okay, I'll show you plenty. Plenty. How about one? Yeah, okay. Let's start with one. Okay, so when the women saw Jesus in Matthew 28 through 8 through 90, that's the Bible verse that you're looking at. Did they run away and didn't tell anyone, or did they go out and told the disciples? Because there's two accounts of that story. One found in Matthew 28, 8 through 9, and one found in Mark 16, 8. So it says in Matthew 28 verse 8, it says, and they departed quickly from the sepulcher with fear and great joy, and did run to bring his disciples word. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold Jesus met them saying, all hail. And they came and held him by the feet and worshiped him. Then said Jesus unto them, be not afraid, go tell my brethren that they should go into Galilee and there they shall see me. Now when they were going, the old son of the watch came into the city and showed on the chief priests all the things that were done. So this is saying that they're traveling to talk to the disciples, right? So what's the contradiction? What's the other- Mark 16, 8. Okay, Mark 16. Mark 16 verse 8. And they went out quickly and fled from the sepulcher for they trembled and were amazed. Neither said they anything to any man for they were afraid. Now here's the thing, when they run out of the sepulcher, this is the timeline from when they were running and then in Matthew chapter number 28, they end up running into Jesus. So from the time that they left the sepulcher to the time that they ran into Jesus, they didn't tell any single person. That's what that verse says. So in Matthew 16, they intended to tell someone, it specifically says that they intended to go out to the disciples and tell them that the tomb was empty and then just stop them and then specify to tell them that he was going to meet them at Galilee. However, in Mark, we see that they trembled and didn't want to tell anyone because they had fear. Never in Mark does it say that they were going to go or that they had the intention of going to tell the disciples, whilst in Matthew it makes that specification. So I don't see any contradiction. Mark is saying that when they left the sepulcher, that they did not tell anybody. It says in the next verse that they ran into Jesus and then after that verse it says they went and told the disciples. That matches the exact same timeline of Matthew 28 and it holds no contradiction. The only way to be a contradiction is if it said that they talked to a man before they interacted with Jesus, but it doesn't say that. It says very clearly that they did not talk to any man, then they encountered Jesus, then they told the disciples. That's the exact same account given in Matthew. So I don't see the contradiction there. I don't see how you can't see that that could be even a possibility here. That is an interpretation you could have, however, there are other contradictions that we could jump to. All right, well, look, I appreciate your time. There's one more. Okay. There's one more and then we're done with one more. Okay. Was Joachim, I believe is how you pronounce his name, 8 or 18 at his time of rule? So this is something that some people don't understand about kings. Sometimes kings are appointed as the leader or the monarch at a young age before their father dies and then later when the father actually dies, they get their final appointment. So sometimes what the Bible is describing is how at 8 years old they decided he's going to be the next monarch and they had a ceremony to commemorate the fact that he would be the next monarch and then once the father actually died, he actually became the king at that particular age. So it's not a contradiction, it's just a misunderstanding of what it's saying. What was the use in both verses is coronation though. So it was, they were both coronation events. Okay. Yeah. They were both coronation events at distinct ages. I understand the point of interpretation that you're trying to gather from the Bible, but if you're reading the Bible without, with complete inerrancy, right? Yes. Even complete biblical inerrancy. Yes. And you look at two biblical passages that utilize the exact same words in the original text to then further apply interpretation to try and justify these verses is quite literally the definition of nitpicking. I believe that this has no error and you know, I don't see the contradiction today, but I appreciate you talking with me. All right. Okay man. Thanks for having a good day. All right.