The Latest Issue of JBMW

The latest issue of JBMW has appeared.

Tom Schreiner has an important review of Philip Barton Payne’s new book, and a sermon that I preached a few years ago at Northwestern College (Minneapolis, MN) in their Chapel has been published. Every item in the table of the contents looks like an interesting read:

Denny Burk Editorial

JBMW Odds & Ends

R. Albert Mohler Jr. Boys Wearing Skirts to School? What’s Going On?

Jason Hall and Peter R. Schemm Jr. Marriage as It Was Meant to Be Seen: Headship, Submission, and the Gospel

Rob Lister “Husbands, Love Your Wives . . .” A Practical Suggestion and Tool for Husbands to Use in Leading their Marriages for the Glory of God

Owen Strachan Whither Men? A Response to a Recent Barna Study on the Increase of Female Pastors in Protestant Churches

Wayne Walden Galatians 3:28: Grammar, Text, Context, and Translation

James M. Hamilton Jr. Godliness and Gender: Relating Appropriately to All (1 Timothy 2:9–12)

Thomas R. Schreiner Philip Payne on Familiar Ground

Ben Reaoch Two Egalitarian Paths toward the Same Destination

Heath Lambert A Lack of Balance

Owen Strachan Insightful but Flawed Look at Gospel Women

Phillip R. Bethancourt Fatherhood Is No Accident


4 Responses to The Latest Issue of JBMW

  1. Sue May 27, 2010 at 1:17 am #

    Hi Jim,

    I have a few questions.

    1) Why did you not include the BDAG entry for authenteo?

    2) How do you account for the use of didasko in Titus 1:11, certainly not positive but neutral.

    3) Would you share the results of the study you used to conclude that marriages fail because women run the household. In fact, that is exactly what women are instructed to do in 1 Tim. 5:14. Should women not obey scripture?

    4) I am curious about whether you think male authority over female was counter-cultural when 1 Timothy was written, or has only become counter-cultural more recently.

    Thanks so much,

    Sue

    • Jim Hamilton May 28, 2010 at 6:34 am #

      Thanks for your note, Sue, my replies:

      1) As you know, we determine the meaning of words from context and usage. We look at primary source evidence. That being the case, I don’t feel the need to “check a scholarly box” by including references that aren’t necessary. The significant question is: how is a word used at the time that Paul writes. What a particular lexicon says is secondary.

      2) Paul makes clear that this is teaching that should not be happening by modifying the ptcpl “teaching” with the phrase “what is not necessary for shameful gain.” I just preached through Titus. You might be interested in the sermons, which you can access here: http://jimhamilton.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/sermons-on-titus/

      3) Here are some outworkings of the curse in Genesis 3:16:

      *Usurping Women*

      “your desire will be for your husband”

      Sarah’s plan for the seed to come through Hagar (16:1–4)

      Lot’s daughter’s plan to preserve the lineage of their father (19:30–38)

      Rachel’s magic mandrakes (30:14)

      Leah buys Jacob with mandrakes (30:16)

      Tamar’s trap for Judah (38:14)

      *Marital Disharmony*

      Sarah disputes with Abraham (16:5)

      Rachel disputes with Jacob (30:1–2)

      *Husbands Abusing Their Wives*

      “he will rule over you”

      Abraham uses Sarah for his own protection, twice (12:10–20; 20:1–13)

      Isaac uses Rebekah for his own protection (26:6–11)

      Leah was hated (29:31)

      I think the instructions in the NT in Eph 5:21-33, for instance, are meant to address these kinds of problems.

      4) I’m not sure what you mean. If you mean to ask if I think husbands loving their wives as Christ loved the church and wives submitting to their husbands as the church submits to Christ, yes, that has always been counter-cultural. If you mean to refer to “male authority” in a negative sense, Genesis 3:16 says that males are going to respond in inappropriately harsh ways. What males need is to exercise authority the way Jesus does not relativize authority.

      Blessings!

      Jim

  2. Sue May 28, 2010 at 11:38 pm #

    Hi Jim,

    Thanks for your gracious response.

    1) The significant question is: how is a word used at the time that Paul writes.

    I agree but there is only one other occurence at the time of the NT and Baldwin, Payne and Grudem all agree that it meant “to compel.” Grudem writes in EFBT, on page 680, regarding this word,

    “However, the meaning of “compel” does seem appropriate.”

    If Grudem is in accord with Payne in this book, what has changed in the meantime?

    2) Paul makes clear that this is teaching that should not be happening by modifying the ptcpl “teaching” with the phrase “what is not necessary for shameful gain.”

    Then you agree with me, that “to teach” is a neutral word which takes on meaning in context.

    3) You wrote,

    “Do you know that more marriages fail in this
    country because men and women reject what the
    Bible says about gender roles than they fail for other reasons. If you examine marriages, the reasons people don’t get along is they are living like Gen 3:16. The woman is seeking to run the household.”

    I was asking what evidence you have that marriages fail in the USA because women are seeking to run the household.

    I was under the impression from 1 Tim. 5:14 and from Proverbs 31 that women were told to run the household. Every example which you provide from the scriptures are examples of women desiring to bear children.

    4) I am suggesting that a hierarchical marriage in which there is one way submission is very cultural both then and now. And a marriage with mutual submission is counter cultural.

    Thanks once again for responding.

    Sue

  3. Sue May 31, 2010 at 6:49 pm #

    Jim,

    I understand that you may not have time to respond. However, I hope you can sympathize with my concern that you are saying some negative things about women without justification. Women deserve to be loved as sisters, and should not be given negative messages about running the household, if this is the role which they have been assigned in their marriage.

    Thanks so much for allowing me to comment.

    Sue

Leave a Reply