Has anyone ever heard of this book?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mindaboo

Puritan Board Graduate
Is anyone familiar with the book, "Through His Eyes: God's perspective on Women in the Bible" by Jerram Barrs? Our women's Bible study is considering the book and I don't know the author. The only reviews I have read are on Amazon and I wouldn't consider that a reliable source.

Another question, can anyone tell me what the picture is on the front of the book? Is that an image of Jesus? His other books have more obvious pictures of Christ. That is enough to make me want to throw the book out of the study.

Amazon.com: Through His Eyes: God's Perspective on Women in the Bible…
 
Last edited:
I believe the picture is intended to depict the story beginning in John 8:2. Christ and the woman caught in adultery. As such, it would be a second commandment violation.
 
Josh sez: "Yes, someone, somewhere, has heard of this book."

Cover art is meant to represent the scene of the woman caught in adultery.
 
Jerram Barrs is a professor at the seminary of the PCA, Covenant. I believe he generally teaches ministry courses such as evangelism.
 
Josh sez: "Yes, someone, somewhere, has heard of this book."

Okay, will I ever learn? I do this everytime and everytime I get this answer!

Thanks, I thought the cover was a second commandment violation. Now to figure out how to handle this dilemma with my church and my sisters in the Lord.
 
Josh sez: "Yes, someone, somewhere, has heard of this book."

Okay, will I ever learn? I do this everytime and everytime I get this answer!

Thanks, I thought the cover was a second commandment violation. Now to figure out how to handle this dilemma with my church and my sisters in the Lord.

Not only is the cover a problem, but in this book Barrs (albeit lightly) advocates for women to teach men within the context of the church in his discussion of Hannah - where he argues that "God gifts women to teach and instruct and edify other women, and to teach and instruct and edify men. Another way to put this is that the words of women are intended by God to edify the whole people of God. The song of Hannah would not be in Scripture if that were not true." (pp. 167-168)

A stretch at best - and perhaps he is NOT actually arguing that women should be allowed to teach mixed groups in the church, but given other things I've known him to say, it seems he's arguing that very thing in the quoted section.
 
Not only is the cover a problem, but in this book Barrs (albeit lightly) advocates for women to teach men within the context of the church in his discussion of Hannah - where he argues that "God gifts women to teach and instruct and edify other women, and to teach and instruct and edify men. Another way to put this is that the words of women are intended by God to edify the whole people of God. The song of Hannah would not be in Scripture if that were not true." (pp. 167-168)

A stretch at best - and perhaps he is NOT actually arguing that women should be allowed to teach mixed groups in the church, but given other things I've known him to say, it seems he's arguing that very thing in the quoted section.

Thank you, Todd. I guess I should go ask my pastor, who recommended the book what his thoughts were in recommending it. He knows that this goes against everything I believe. Have you read the book?
 
Not only is the cover a problem, but in this book Barrs (albeit lightly) advocates for women to teach men within the context of the church in his discussion of Hannah - where he argues that "God gifts women to teach and instruct and edify other women, and to teach and instruct and edify men. Another way to put this is that the words of women are intended by God to edify the whole people of God. The song of Hannah would not be in Scripture if that were not true." (pp. 167-168)

A stretch at best - and perhaps he is NOT actually arguing that women should be allowed to teach mixed groups in the church, but given other things I've known him to say, it seems he's arguing that very thing in the quoted section.

Thank you, Todd. I guess I should go ask my pastor, who recommended the book what his thoughts were in recommending it. He knows that this goes against everything I believe. Have you read the book?

I skimmed it once - and admittedly was looking for this kind of thing. I grabbed the quotation from the google books preview. All in all, I think Barrs isn't all bad - and this book I think does put some good things out there. I don't recall other obvious examples, but it was some time ago that I looked it over - I just remember this one sticking out.
 
I skimmed it once - and admittedly was looking for this kind of thing. I grabbed the quotation from the google books preview. All in all, I think Barrs isn't all bad - and this book I think does put some good things out there. I don't recall other obvious examples, but it was some time ago that I looked it over - I just remember this one sticking out.

I am going to email the pastor and see if he has read it. It would fall in line with what my church seems to promote on some level. I guess I am afraid it will add fuel to a fire that has already been sparked.
 
Hmm...

Our small groups have been studying this book for the past few months and have been greatly edified by it. Most studies on women in the Bible are written by women, for women. That's well and good, but we've found that this is a good one for men and women to study together.

I can pretty confidently say that nothing in the book argues for women to teach mixed groups in the church, and even if it did, the book on the whole is so good that I'd recommend it and just caution those who read/teach it to do so carefully.
 
I can pretty confidently say that nothing in the book argues for women to teach mixed groups in the church, and even if it did, the book on the whole is so good that I'd recommend it and just caution those who read/teach it to do so carefully.

Our group will only be women. Thank you for your post. How long have you been studying this? And how far are you through the book?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top